This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on July 15, 2025. It is shared here with permission.

In yet another controversial move from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons recently told officers that immigrants who arrived in the United States illegally are no longer eligible for a bond hearing as they fight against deportation and should be detained “for the duration of their removal proceedings.”

The Washington Post first revealed Lyons’ July 8 memo late Monday. He wrote that after the Trump administration “revisited its legal position on detention and release authorities,” and determined that such immigrants “may not be released from ICE custody.” He also said that rare exceptions should be made by officers, not judges.

The reporting drew swift and intense condemnation online. One social media user said: “Unconstitutional. Unethical. Authoritarian.”

In a statement shared with several news outlets, a spokesperson for ICE confirmed the new policy and said that “the recent guidance closes a loophole to our nation’s security based on an inaccurate interpretation of the statute.”

“It is aligned with the nation’s long-standing immigration law,” the spokesperson said. “All aliens seeking to enter our country in an unlawful manner or for illicit purposes shall be treated equally under the law, while still receiving due process.”

The move comes as President Donald Trump and leaders in his administration, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, attempt to deliver on his promised mass deportations—with federal agents targeting peaceful student activists, spraying children with tear gas, and detaining immigrants in inhumane conditions at the so-called “Alligator Alcatraz.”

In a statement about the ICE memo, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that “President Trump and Secretary Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep Americans safe.”

“Politicians and activists can cry wolf all they want, but it won’t deter this administration from keeping these criminals and lawbreakers off American streets—and now, thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill, we will have plenty of bed space to do so,” she added, referring to $45 billion for ICE detention in Republicans’ recently signed package.

According to the Post:

Since the memos were issued last week, the American Immigration Lawyers Association said members had reported that immigrants were being denied bond hearings in more than a dozen immigration courts across the United States, including in New York, Virginia, Oregon, North Carolina, Ohio, and Georgia. The Department of Justice oversees the immigration courts.

“This is their way of putting in place nationwide a method of detaining even more people,” said Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “It’s requiring the detention of far more people without any real review of their individual circumstances.”

Rebekah Wolf of the American Immigration Council told NBC News that her group has also received reports of some immigration judges “accepting the argument” from ICE, “and because the memo isn’t public, we don’t even know what law the government is relying on to make the claim that everyone who has ever entered without inspection is subject to mandatory detention.”

The Post reported that “the provision is based on a section of immigration law that says unauthorized immigrants ‘shall be detained’ after their arrest, but that has historically applied to those who recently crossed the border and not longtime residents.”

The newspaper also noted that Lyons wrote the new guidance is expected to face legal challenges. Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda—like various other policies—has been forcefully challenged in court, and there has been an exodus from the Justice Department unit responsible for defending presidential actions.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Doug Dingwall of ABC Pacific

A landmark case that began in a Pacific classroom and could change the course of future climate talks is about to be heard in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The court will begin hearings involving a record number of countries in The Hague, in the Netherlands, today.

Its 15 judges have been asked, for the first time, to give an opinion about the obligations of nations to prevent climate change — and the consequences for them if they fail.

• READ MORE: Other ICJ climate lawsuit reports

The court’s findings could bolster the cases of nations taking legal action against big polluters failing to reduce emissions, experts say.

They could also strengthen the hand of Pacific Island nations in future climate change negotiations like COP.

Vanuatu, one of the world’s most natural disaster-prone nations, is leading the charge in the international court.

The road to the ICJ — nicknamed the “World Court” — started five years ago when a group of University of the South Pacific law students studying in Vanuatu began discussing how they could help bring about climate action.

“This case is really another example of Pacific Island countries being global leaders on the climate crisis,” Dr Wesley Morgan, a research associate with UNSW’s Institute for Climate Risk and Response, said.

“It’s an amazing David and Goliath moment.”

Meanwhile, experts say the Pacific will be watching Australia’s testimony today closely.

So what is the court case about exactly, and how did it get to this point?

From classroom to World Court
Cynthia Houniuhi, from Solomon Islands, remembers clearly the class discussion where it all began.

Students at the University of the South Pacific’s campus in Vanuatu’s capital, Port Vila, turned their minds to the biggest issue faced by their home countries.

While their communities were dealing with sea level rise and intense cyclones, there was an apparent international “deadlock” on climate change action, Houniuhi said.

And each new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change painted a bleak picture of their futures.

“These things are real to us,” Hounhiuhi said. “And we cannot accept that . . .  fate in the IPCC report.

“[We’re] not accepting that there’s nothing we can do.”

Their lecturer tasked them with finding a legal avenue for action. He challenged them to be ambitious. And he told them to take it out of their classroom to their national leaders.

So the students settled on an idea: Ask the World Court to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of states to protect the climate against greenhouse gas emissions.

“That’s what resonated to us,” Houniuhi, now president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said.

They sent out letters to Pacific Island governments asking for support and Vanuatu’s then-Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu agreed to meet with the students.

Vanuatu took up the cause and built a coalition of countries pushing the UN General Assembly to send the matter to its main judicial body, the International Court of Justice, for an advisory opinion.

In March last year, they succeeded when the UN nations unanimously adopted the resolution to refer the case — a historic first for the UN General Assembly.

It was a decision celebrated with a parade on the streets of Port Vila.

Australian National University professor in international law Dr Donald Rothwell said Pacific nations had already overcome their biggest challenge in building enough support for the case to be heard.

“From the perspective of Vanuatu and the small island and other states who brought these proceedings, this is quite a momentous occasion, if only because these states rarely have appeared before the International Court of Justice,” he said.

“This is the first occasion where they’ve really had the ability to raise these issues in the World Court, and that in itself will attract an enormous amount of global attention and raise awareness.”

Dr Sue Farran, a professor of comparative law at Newcastle University in the United Kingdom, said getting the case before the ICJ was also part of achieving climate justice.

“It’s recognition that certain peoples have suffered more than others as a result of climate change,” she said.

“And justice means addressing wrongs where people have been harmed.”

A game changer on climate?
Nearly 100 countries will speak over two weeks of hearings — an unprecedented number, Professor Rothwell said.

Each has only a short, 30-minute slot to make their argument.

The court will decide on two questions: What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions?

And, what are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to the climate and environment?

Vanuatu will open the hearings with its testimony.

Regenvanu, now Vanuatu’s special envoy on climate change, said the case was timely in light of the last COP meeting, where financial commitments from rich, polluting nations fell short of the mark for Pacific Islands that needed funding to deal with climate change.

For a nation hit with three cyclones last year — and where natural disaster-struck schools have spent months teaching primary students in hot UNICEF tents – the stakes are high in climate negotiations.

“We just graduated from being a least-developed country a few years ago,” Regenvanu said.

“We don’t have the financial capacity to build back better, build back quicker, respond and recover quicker.

“We need the resources that other countries were able to attain and become rich through fossil fuel development that caused this crisis we are now facing.

“That’s why we’re appearing before the ICJ. We want justice in terms of allowing us to have the same capacity to respond quickly after catastrophic events.”

He said the advisory opinion would stop unnecessary debates that bog down climate negotiations, by offering legal clarity on the obligations of states on climate change.

It will also help define controversial terms, such as “climate finance” — which developing nations argue should not include loans.

And while the court’s advisory opinion will be non-binding, it also has the potential to influence climate change litigation around the world.

Dr Rothwell said much would depend on how the court answered the case’s second question – on the consequences for states that failed to take climate action.

He said an opinion that favoured small island nations, like in the Pacific Islands, would let them pursue legal action with more certainty.

“That could possibly open up a battleground for major international litigation into the future, subject to how the [International Court of Justice] answers that question,” he said.

Regenvanu said Vanuatu was already looking at options it could take once the court issues its advisory opinion.

“Basically all options are on the table from litigation on one extreme, to much clearer negotiation tactics, based on what the advisory opinion says, at the forthcoming couple of COPs.”

‘This is hope’
Vanuatu brought the case to the ICJ with the support of a core group of 18 countries, including New Zealand, Germany, Bangladesh and Singapore.

Australia, which co-sponsored the UN resolution sending the case to the ICJ, will also speak at today’s hearings.

“Many will be watching closely, but Vanuatu will be watching more closely than anyone, having led this process,” Dr Morgan said.

A Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesperson said Australia had engaged consistently with the court proceedings, reflecting its support for the Pacific’s commitment to strengthening global climate action.

Some countries have expressed misgivings about taking the case to the ICJ.

The United States’ representative at the General Assembly last year argued diplomacy was a better way to address climate change.

And over the two weeks of court hearings this month, it’s expected nations contributing most to greenhouse gases will argue for a narrow reading of their responsibilities to address climate change under international law — one that minimises their obligations.

Other nations will argue that human rights laws and other international agreements — like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — give these nations larger obligations to prevent climate change.

Professor Rothwell said it was hard to predict what conclusion the World Court would reach — and he expected the advisory opinion would not arrive until as late as October next year.

“When we’re looking at 15 judges, when we’re looking at a wide range of legal treaties and conventions upon which the court is being asked to address these questions, it’s really difficult to speculate at this point,” he said.

“We’ll very much just have to wait and see what the outcome is.”

There’s the chance the judges will be split, or they will not issue a strong advisory opinion.

But Regenvanu is drawing hope from a recent finding in a similar case at the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea, which found countries are obliged to protect the oceans from climate change impacts.

“It’s given us a great deal of validation that what we will get out of the ICJ will be favourable,” he said.

For Houniuhi, the long journey from the Port Vila classroom five years ago is about to lead finally to the Peace Palace in The Hague, where the ICJ will have its hearings.

Houniuhi said the case would let her and her fellow students have their experiences of climate change reflected at the highest level.

But for her, the court case has another important role.

“This is hope for our people.”

Republished from ABC Pacific with permission and RNZ Pacific under a community partnership.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

As a general premise, I didn’t have a lot of hope for the hearing. Language is crucial, and the title says it all: any action by the US is merely “defense” against acts of political warfare committed by China. And still, I was disappointed. Not only was it filled with racist, paranoid rhetoric, but it was supremely unjust, lacking any level of self-awareness, and almost certainly operated solely as an agenda-pushing cover for whatever act of warfare our government sought to commit next.

Three witnesses took to the stands. The first was Erik Bethel, a finance professional selected to represent the US at the World Bank. He was followed by Mary Kissel, Former Senior Advisor to the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Third was James E. Fanell, the Former Director of Intelligence and Information Operations for the US Pacific Fleet and current Government Fellow.

Big people with big titles. That is the usual order of things: a few “experts” are selected to “teach” members of Congress about complex subjects they may lack background in. The Committee of Oversight and Accountability certainly lacks China expertise. Representative Lisa McClain spent ten years working for American Express before she was elected to represent the state of Michigan. Chairman James Comer was a Kentucky farmer. Representative Paul Gosar was a dentist in Arizona. Marjorie Taylor Green was a part-time CrossFit gym coach. Many of them have never traveled to China, let alone held a productive conversation with a member of China’s government.

Their lack of expertise didn’t stop them from sounding their opinions. I listened carefully, hoping to give them the benefit of the doubt. It was a fruitless endeavor.

Representative McClain spoke about her district: “In Michigan, we have the Gotion plant… We have a Chinese-owned company and the only spot they can figure out that is feasible for them to build is next to a university and next to a military base. Anybody think that’s a coincidence?”

In the audience, the new summer Hillterns listened with rapt attention.

“I’m not much for coincidences,” McClain continued. “We talk about, well it’s gonna create jobs. Jobs for who? I’m very concerned, and I’m not much for coincidences.”

She was talking about the plans to build a new plant in Michigan for electric vehicle components under the company Gotion, which has headquarters in Shanghai. The plan is speculated to bring thousands of jobs to the area, with wages about 150% of the current average. McClain, having no substance on which to defend her opposition to the plant, instead decided to speculate on its geographic location, implying the company is purposefully building near a university and military installation. Clearly, the plant is a spy base for the Chinese government, as surely as any 18 to 26-year-old Chinese immigrant is an undercover Chinese soldier sent to wreak havoc upon our country– all baseless, unfounded claims that promote Asian American hate and shift public perception to support anti-China policies.

The military base she’s talking about is Camp Grayling, which is actually over 100 miles away from Big Rapids, where the EV plant will be built. As for the proximity to Ferris State University, the relevance of that statement is questionable. There are around 77 colleges and universities in the entire state– 198 if you include community colleges and trade schools. It would be difficult not to build near one. But that’s beside the point. This is merely one example of the outlandish and absurd claims made in the hearing, backed by anecdotal and unreliable “evidence” based on feelings and a strange paranoia that anything with links to China has malicious intentions.

In response to McClain’s statements, Mary Kissel said, “Let’s not give them too much credit as long-term thinkers. Let’s remember they almost destroyed their country several times over.” The words were spoken derisively, reaffirming my suspicion that Ms. Kissel boasts severe negative prejudices towards China and Chinese people. She continued to cite the Cultural Revolution, the debt crisis, and “etcetera.” In truth, the US is a mere baby in comparison to China’s 5,000 years of history. As for Ms. Kissel’s claims, to say Chinese people nearly destroyed their country is misleading and tinged with a disturbing colonialistic self-superiority that the West does everything better.

Ms. Kissel also stated her opinion of how China operates: “China is a party state. The function of China is not to better the interests of the Chinese people– it is to promote, strengthen, and expand the power and influence, and reach of the Chinese Communist Party.”

I challenge this claim, not just for its wrongful absolutism, but because China has repeatedly shown immense interest in improving the everyday lives of its citizens. China is unparalleled in its developmental growth aimed at providing infrastructure and opportunities to the people. Housing, public transportation, health care, and education are all convenient and affordable. The average retirement age is 54 years old. Over the past few decades, the government has been working ceaselessly to eradicate extreme poverty with tremendous success. Over 800 million people have been taken out of poverty and afforded a better quality of life. Not only that, but China continues to emphasize the importance of green energy in building a sustainable future. Shenzhen, one of the country’s biggest high-tech cities, has even switched over all public transportation to electric vehicles. This isn’t pro-China propaganda, it’s simply fact.

Along with forged criticism of China’s internal dynamics and history, the hearing also challenged China’s position when it comes to the US.

The overall goal of China, Ms. Kissel proclaimed, is to “upend our way of life and to dominate and change our way of life.” They are “committed to destroy(ing) us.”

At first glance, it sounds absurd that an individual so ostensibly high up on the policy advisory hierarchy would make such a condemnatory and extreme claim. But considering that Ms. Kissel served under Mike Pompeo during Donald Trump’s presidential term, it is not so surprising. It was not an administration known for its truth-telling.

First and foremost, China has no plans to destroy the United States. We can easily cipher this through both statement and action. To claim otherwise is false and promotes a dangerous narrative that guides our policy-makers down a one-way path to war.

Erik Bethel’s claim that “China is encircling us” is also highly deceptive. Adversely, it is the US that has encircled China with over 300 military bases and countless troops. China has no military bases in the entire Western hemisphere. There is no “encircling” occurring.

Former US Representative Tom Malinowski criticized China for trying to make the US “look bad to the rest of the world.” This is, at best, overwhelmingly hypocritical. Just recently it was uncovered that the US launched a secret anti-vax operation in the Philippines during the deadliest months of the COVID-19 pandemic to undermine China’s influence in the region. According to a senior US military official, “We weren’t looking at this from a public health perspective. We were looking at how we could drag China through the mud.”

As the hearing drew on, the claims grew more and more unhinged.

“They’re teaming up with the Mexican drug cartels and they’re killing Americans,” Congressman Fallon told everyone, backing his claim that China is killing nearly as many Americans per day as died during WW2.

“They know how many paperclips you all are using in the Longworth building,” Representative Tim Burchett said, reminiscing on a Mike Pompeo quote.

“What if they were to develop some kind of biological entity that can, say, wipe out females of child-bearing ages or something?” Burchett queried.

“If you’re using this app (Tiktok), they can listen to you,” Another added.

“We should do the opposite of what China wants us to do,” Malinowski put forth as a general solution.

“We need to construct not just a defensive strategy, but an offensive strategy,” Ms. Kissel spoke decisively. Twice it was mentioned that her last name rhymes with missile– nominative determinism perhaps.

It was as if the hearing took lines straight out of an SNL skit. It’s unfathomable that these are the people sitting in our Congressional hearing rooms, talking about war. These are the people voting on legislation that could propel us into a conflict with China that would bring death and destruction to millions, and most likely end in nuclear catastrophe or total destruction of the planet.

Our politicians, although ignorant and lacking expertise, are willing cogs in the war machine. They bring the most anti-China and pro-military witnesses to the stands to reaffirm their own paranoid delusions about an all-knowing, all-hateful “other” across the sea that seeks to destroy everything bright and beautiful about the world. This is happening on a weekly basis.

The truth is that it is not China gearing up for war, but our very own government. Our politicians are pumping billions of dollars into hyper-militarizing the Asia Pacific and writing it off as “deterrence.” They’re spouting lies and fear-inducing narratives at Congressional hearings in a bid to garner support for anti-China legislation. These stories are trickling down through the media and infecting the minds of the general public, priming the US military for its next conquest. Why? Because the US is self-interested and directed solely by its desire to maintain global hegemony, even at the expense of all others. China is not a threat because it’s threatening our security– China is a threat because it’s successful.

Tucked securely in their offices, our politicians will sign bill after bill funding proxy conflicts around the world, but they will never know the many hideous faces of war. They’ll point fingers and make accusations, but they will never turn the mirror around to acknowledge their own hypocrisies. They’ll stand there saluting when bodies come home in boxes and claim it was for the greater good, but they will never face the consequences of their actions– they will never be forced to die for another’s deceptions.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Megan Russell.

U.S. and British forces have hit Iran-backed Huthi rebel military targets in Yemen -- -- an action immediately condemned by Tehran -- sparking fears around the world of a growing conflict in the Middle East as fighting rages in the Gaza Strip.

U.S. President Joe Biden said in a statement that the move was meant to show that the United States and its allies “will not tolerate” the Iran-backed rebel group’s increasing number of attacks in the Red Sea, which have threatened freedom of navigation and endangered U.S. personnel and civilian navigation.

The rebels said that the air strikes, which occurred in an area already shaken by Israel's war with Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and European Union, totaled 73 and killed at least five people.

"Today, at my direction, U.S. military forces -- together with the United Kingdom and with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands -- successfully conducted strikes against a number of targets in Yemen used by Huthi rebels to endanger freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most vital waterways," Biden said in a statement.

“These strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Huthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea -- including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history,” Biden said of the international mission that also involved Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands.

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Biden approved the strikes after a Huthi attack on January 9. U.S. and British naval forces repelled that attack, shooting down drones and missiles fired by the Huthis from Yemen toward the southern Red Sea.

Kirby said the United States does not want war with Yemen or a conflict of any kind but will not hesitate to take further action.

"Everything the president has been doing has been trying to prevent any escalation of conflict, including the strikes last night," he said.

The UN Security Council called an emergency meeting for later on January 12 over the strikes. The session was requested by Russia and will take place after a meeting to discuss the situation in Gaza.

Huthi rebels have stepped up attacks on vessels in the Red Sea since Israel launched its war on Hamas over the group's surprise cross-border attack on October 7 that killed some 1,200 Israelis and saw dozens more taken hostage.

The Huthis have claimed their targeting of navigation in the Red Sea is meant to show the group's support for the Palestinians and Hamas.

Thousands of the rebels held protests in Yemen's capital, Sanaa, where they chanted “We aren’t discouraged. Let it be a major world war!”

The White House said Huthi acts of piracy have affected more than 50 countries and forced more than 2,000 ships to make detours of thousands of kilometers to avoid the Red Sea. It said crews from more than 20 countries were either taken hostage or threatened by Huthi piracy.

Kirby said a "battle damage assessment" to determine how much the Huthi capabilities had been degraded was ongoing.

Britain said sites including airfields had been hit. U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who is still hospitalized following complications from prostate cancer surgery, said earlier the strikes were aimed at Huthi drones, ballistic, and cruise missiles, as well as coastal radar and air surveillance capabilities.

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the strikes were "necessary and proportionate."

"Despite the repeated warnings from the international community, the Huthis have continued to carry out attacks in the Red Sea," Sunak said in a statement.

Iran immediately condemned the attacks saying they would bring further turbulence to the Middle East.

"We strongly condemn the military attacks carried out this morning by the United States and the United Kingdom on several cities in Yemen," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kannani said in a post on Telegram.

"These arbitrary actions are a clear violation of Yemen's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a violation of international laws and regulations. These attacks will only contribute to insecurity and instability in the region," he added.

A Huthi spokesman said the attacks were unjustified and the rebels will keep targeting ships heading toward Israel.

The Huthis, whose slogan is "Death to America, Death to Israel, curse the Jews and victory to Islam," are part of what has been described as the Iran-backed axis of resistance that also includes anti-Israel and anti-Western militias such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Huthi rebels have fought Yemen's government for decades. In 2014, they took the capital, Sanaa.

While Iran has supplied them with weapons and aid, the Huthis say they are not Tehran's puppets and their main goal is to topple Yemen's "corrupt" leadership.

With reporting by Reuters and dpa

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

South Africa filed an application alleging that Israel’s acts and failure to act in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, in the wake of the attacks on 7 October 2023 by Hamas and other armed groups, are genocidal in character. South Africa’s application urges the court to order “provisional measures” to protect the Palestinian people in Gaza, including by calling upon Israel to immediately halt military attacks that “constitute or give rise to violations of the Genocide Convention” and to rescind related measures amounting to collective punishment and forced displacement. Initial hearings will take place at the ICJ in The Hague on 11 and 12 January.

As the United States continues to use its veto power to block the UN Security Council from calling for a ceasefire, war crimes and crimes against humanity are rife, and the risk of genocide is real.
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International

Amnesty International has not made a determination that the situation in Gaza amounts to genocide. However, there are alarming warning signs given the staggering scale of death and destruction with more than 23,000 Palestinians killed in just over three months and a further 10,000 missing under the rubble, presumed dead, as well as an appalling spike in dehumanizing and racist rhetoric against Palestinians by certain Israeli government and military officials. This, coupled with Israel’s imposition of an illegal siege in Gaza, which has cut off or severely restricted the civilian population’s access to water, food, medical assistance and fuel, is inflicting unfathomable levels of suffering and puts the survival of those within Gaza at risk.

“There is no end in sight to the mass human suffering, devastation and destruction we are witnessing on an hourly basis in Gaza. The risk that Gaza would be transformed from the world’s biggest open-air prison to a giant graveyard has, crushingly, materialized right before our eyes,” said Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

“As the United States continues to use its veto power to block the UN Security Council from calling for a ceasefire, war crimes and crimes against humanity are rife, and the risk of genocide is real. States have a positive obligation to prevent and punish genocide and other atrocity crimes. The ICJ’s examination of Israel’s conduct is a vital step for the protection of Palestinian lives, to restore trust and credibility in the universal application of international law, and to pave the way for justice and reparation for victims.”

All states have an international legal obligation to act to prevent genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and, as determined by the ICJ previously, under customary law. This means that the obligation to prevent is binding on all states, including states that are not party to the Convention. On 16 November 2023 a group of UN experts warned of a “genocide in the making” in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and particularly in Gaza.

“It is difficult to overstate the scale of the devastation and destruction that has been wrought in Gaza over the past three months. Much of northern Gaza has been destroyed and at least 85% of Gaza’s population is now internally displaced. Many Palestinians and human rights experts see this as part of an Israeli strategy to render Gaza “unlivable”. This has been coupled with disturbing statements from certain Israeli officials advocating for the unlawful deportation or forcible transfer of Palestinians outside Gaza and abhorrent use of dehumanizing rhetoric,” said Agnès Callamard.

“Pending a final ruling of the International Court of Justice on whether the crimes of genocide and other crimes under international law have been committed, an urgent order to implement provisional measures would be an important means to help prevent further death, destruction and civilian suffering and provide a warning to other states that they must not contribute to grave violations and crimes against Palestinians.”

Background

Genocide is defined as certain acts committed with “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group” such as a national, ethnical, religious and racial group.

The provisional measures requested by South Africa include calls on Israel to desist from acts within Article II of the Genocide Convention including “killing members of a protected group” and “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. As such, it calls on Israel to prevent forced displacement and deprivation of access to adequate food, water, humanitarian assistance, and medical supplies to Palestinians. Under the Convention, nobody, including the highest government officials, can claim personal immunity for any alleged acts.

South Africa’s ICJ application cites evidence gathered by Amnesty International documenting damning evidence of war crimes and other violations of international law by Israeli forces in their intense bombardment of Gaza, including direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects, indiscriminate and other unlawful attacks, forced displacement of civilians and collective punishment of the civilian population. It also cites research by Amnesty International highlighting that Israel’s system of domination and oppression of Palestinians amounts to apartheid.

Amnesty International also condemns the war crimes committed by Hamas and other armed groups on 7 October, including hostage-taking and deliberate killing of civilians, and their continued indiscriminate rocket attacks.

The organization has repeatedly called for the investigation of violations of international law by all parties and for an immediate sustained ceasefire, the release of all remaining civilian hostages held by armed groups in Gaza, the release of Palestinians arbitrarily detained by Israel and for Israel to end its illegal and inhumane siege of Gaza.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

It was a theme the former president and 2024 GOP frontrunner hit repeatedly throughout his remarks at Drake Enterprises, a truck parts manufacturer that offered to host Trump's rally: The electric vehicle transition and the Biden administration's efforts to accelerate it are going to send jobs overseas and leave the U.S. automobile industry in ruins.

"It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what you get because in two years you're all going to be out of business, you're not getting anything," Trump said. "I mean, I watch you out there with the pickets, but I don't think you're picketing for the right thing."

The former president repeatedly and falsely accused the Biden administration of attempting to bring about a "transition to hell" and impose "electric vehicle mandates that will spell the death of the American auto industry," a narrative that was also prominent during the Republican primary debate that Trump skipped.

Kevin Munoz, a spokesperson for President Joe Biden's 2024 reelection campaign, said in response that Trump is "lying about President Biden's agenda to distract from his failed track record of trickle-down tax cuts, closed factories, and jobs outsourced to China." During Trump's four years in office, the offshoring of U.S. jobs increased.

"There is no 'EV mandate.' Simply put: Trump had the United States losing the EV race to China and if he had his way, the jobs of the future would be going to China," said Munoz. "President Biden is delivering where Donald Trump failed by bringing manufacturing back home, and with it, good-paying jobs for the American people."

As HuffPost's Jonathan Cohn reported late Wednesday, "Since Biden took office in January 2021, total auto industry employment in the U.S. has risen from about 948,000 to 1,073,000 jobs, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a monthly rate of about 4,000 new auto jobs a month."

Challenging the notion that the Biden administration's EV policies are imperiling the U.S. auto industry, Cohn noted that electric vehicle subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act "will close the cost gap so that companies manufacturing electric vehicles and their parts can compete."

"And there are lots of signs that the effort is working," Cohn wrote. "Auto companies have announced plans to build literally dozens of new factories in the U.S., many in what's coming to be known as the 'battery belt,' stretching from Georgia in the South to Michigan in the North. They are expected to generate hundreds of thousands of jobs directly, plus many more (along with economic growth) indirectly."

The UAW leadership has made clear that, unlike Trump, it doesn't oppose the transition to electric vehicles.

Rather, the union wants policymakers to ensure that EV manufacturing jobs are unionized. UAW president Shawn Fain has criticized Biden—who joined union members on the picket line earlier this week—for not doing enough to prevent a "race to the bottom" in the EV transition as automakers increasingly invest in the nonunion U.S. South.

Fain has also not been shy about his feelings toward the former president.

"I don't think the man has any bit of care about what our workers stand for, what the working class stands for," Fain said in a CNN appearance on Tuesday. "He serves the billionaire class, and that's what's wrong with this country."

"People are trying to push that this is organic, but it's not. Trump is curating a crowd, and it pisses me off."

Trump—who has repeatedly called on the UAW to endorse his presidential run—didn't respond Wednesday when asked by a reporter whether he supports the union's push for a nearly 40% wage increase for autoworkers, who have seen their hourly pay decline sharply over the past two decades.

During his speech, Trump "didn't specifically address demands made by autoworkers, other than to say he would protect jobs in a way that would lead to higher wages," the Detroit Free Pressreported.

"But he left it unclear how he would do so," the newspaper added, "given that he didn't demand specific wage increases as president."

It's not clear how many union members were in the audience at Trump's speech, though some were waving "Auto Workers for Trump" and "Union Members for Trump" signs. One individual who held a "Union Members for Trump" sign during the rally admitted to a reporter for The Detroit News that she's not a union member.

"Another person with a sign that read 'Auto Workers for Trump' said he wasn't an auto worker when asked for an interview. Both people didn't provide their names," the outlet reported.

Chris Marchione, political director of the International Union of Painters and Allied TradesDistrict Council 1M in Michigan, toldJacobin's Alex Press that at least one local "right-to-work" activist assisted the Trump campaign in organizing Wednesday's rally.

"People are trying to push that this is organic, but it's not," Marchione said. "Trump is curating a crowd, and it pisses me off. If he wants to support union workers, pay the fucking glaziers who got screwed when they put the windows on Trump Tower."

Ahead of Trump's Michigan visit, the AFL-CIO said in a statement that Trump's presidency was "catastrophic for workers," pointing to his anti-union appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, defense of so-called "right-to-work" laws, repeal of Labor Department rules aimed at protecting worker pay, and failure to protect manufacturing jobs.

"The idea that Donald Trump has ever, or will ever, care about working people is demonstrably false," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "For his entire time as president, he actively sought to roll back worker protections, wages, and the right to join a union at every level."

"UAW members are on the picket line fighting for fair wages and against the very corporate greed that Donald Trump represents," Shuler added. "Working people see through his transparent efforts to reinvent history. We are not buying the lies that Donald Trump is selling. We will continue to support and organize for the causes and candidates that represent our values."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

"The Republican Party knows that they don't have the youth vote," Aster Chau, who organizes for Green New Deal for Schools while attending the Academy at Palumbo in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "They've spent the last few years antagonizing students and teachers—eroding trust in public education—in order to distract from all of the problems they've created in our society. Today, we say no more—these are our schools and our futures."

The push comes as lawmakers in Republican-controlled states have increasingly attempted to mandate what can be taught in the classroom. In Georgia, for example, a "divisive concepts" law prohibits teachers from discussing nine race-related topics. This would include the unequal impacts of the climate crisis, The Guardian pointed out, and has had an overall chilling effect on educators' willingness to raise political issues in the classroom.

"We don't learn about climate change at all," 16-year-old Summer Mathis, who studies at North Cobb High School in Kennesaw, Georgia, told The Guardian.

In Texas, meanwhile, education officials are imposing their views on climate science textbooks, and in Idaho there is an ongoing dispute over whether or not the climate crisis can be included in the curriculum at all. Florida under Gov. Ron DeSantis has approved the use of PragerU Kids materials, which include climate denying and pro-fossil fuel talking points.

"It's really scary knowing that I'm underage, and can't vote to elect the people making these big decisions about our futures."

Beyond curriculum building, there are many things that schools in all states can do to better prepare for and fight the climate crisis.

Currently, public elementary, middle, and high schools use around 9% of the energy consumed by commercial buildings in the U.S., Lisa Hoyos, the national climate strategy director for the League of Conservation Voters, wrote in an op-ed for The Progressive Friday. Switching them all to renewable energy would have the same impact as removing 18 coal plants from the grid.

Schools can also do more to prepare for extreme weather events. In Philadelphia, for example, Chau started school during a heatwave in a building that lacked air conditioning, they told The Guardian.

"Being a youth right now is really scary," Chau said. "It's really scary knowing that I'm underage, and can't vote to elect the people making these big decisions about our futures, not having a say in that."

The new campaign is partly a way to change that.

"For too long, students have been left out of the decision-making spaces within our schools," Shiva Rajbhandari, a Sunrise Movement organizer who is also the youngest school board member in Idaho, said in a statement. "Students are the most important constituents of our school boards, and they deserve to call the shots for their own education. Public schools belong to us, and we know we deserve better."

The campaign comes out of a camp that the Sunrise Movement ran this summer to train hundreds of high school students to advocate for themselves and their communities.

The young people have older allies as well. This week Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass) will reintroduce their Green New Deal for Public Schools Act with hundreds of students present, according to The Guardian.

"Our generation is on the frontlines of this fight," 17-year-old campaign leader Adah Crandall said in a statement, "and it's time for our school districts to take real action."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

The hearing may lift the stigma of reporting sightings of UFOs/UAPs, among personnel in the armed forces (of all nations), and is a major step in revealing the level of official deceit surrounding the topic.

While it may seem irrelevant to our daily lives, acknowledging the existence of UFOs/people from other planets is crucial to understanding ourselves and our place in the solar system. It would potentially change everything, including the way we live, the values we hold the systems we build.

David Grusch, a former US intelligence officer turned whistleblower, has courageously declared what many have been saying for decades, that the US (and others) Government has been covering up evidence of UFOs for many years. Anna Paulina Luna, a member of the committee from Florida (who encountered a UFO in 2018), said “it is unacceptable to continue to gaslight Americans [and others] into thinking this is not happening.”

In addition to David Grusch, the committee heard from retired US navy commander David Fravor and a former US navy pilot, Ryan Graves.

Fravor described that in 2004 he and another pilot had seen “a smooth, seamless oval-shaped object hovering over the water before it rapidly climbed about 12,000 feet in the air. It then accelerated and disappeared. It was detected roughly 60 miles away less than a minute later…..What we experienced was well beyond the material science…. that we have currently or that we’re going to have in the next 10 to 20 years”

Graves recounted that in 2014 his squadron began seeing UFOs, which he described as “dark grey or black cubes … inside of a clear sphere, where the apex or tips of the cubes were touching the inside of that sphere.” He said there was no acknowledgement or ways or reporting such incidents, which he stated were “not rare or isolated but routine…..if everyone could see the sensor and video data I witnessed, our national conversation would change.”

Evidence

The evidence supporting the existence of UFOs is overwhelming and, to any open-minded person, indisputable. Space-craft of varying sizes and shapes, are routinely seen throughout the world, individually or in groups, sometimes dozens of craft together, and filmed or photographed by all manner of people, some in uniform, many not.

They are able to move at terrific speed, stop suddenly or glide gracefully, manoeuvre in seemingly impossible ways. They are clearly not “of this world”, are without question “real” and have been present on Earth for eons.

In addition to direct sightings, various other signs testify to their presence. The crop circles which appear every spring, mainly in fields in southern England. Complex, inexplicable designs, which become more intricate and expansive every year; spirals of light seen in the sky and light patterns recorded on buildings all over the world since 1997.

Undeniable evidence it seems, and yet so successful has the duplicitous message of denial been, that statements about UFOs are still regarded as controversial.

For decades lies have been promulgated relentlessly by governments, not only to hide the facts, but to create a totally false, reductive image of UFOs and their occupants. A cynical narrative adopted and obediently voiced by science fiction writers/film-makers and the media. It states that humanity is alone in the Universe, that sightings of UFOs are always explainable and can therefore be dismissed or ignored, and that extraterrestrial life, if it exists, is just like humanity – violent, selfish and exploitative, and is therefore a threat to us.

All nonsense; deceit, lies and more lies. Constructed by politicians and religious leaders, who know the truth, in order to perpetuate injustice, maintain control and create fear of the unknown; paranoia and hate of “the other” multiplied tenfold.

Groundbreaking

A pivotal voice in revealing the reality and nature of UFO phenomena was George Adamski (1891-1965). He wrote two groundbreaking books: Flying Saucers have Landed, co-written with Desmond Leslie, who explained that spaceships – mostly from “Mars and Venus” – had been visiting Earth for millennia, and listed sightings going back to the 16C. Then came Inside The Spaceships, another remarkable book, in which Adamski records, visiting a huge “cigar shaped Mothership”.

On board he met extraordinary people and had a number of illuminating discussions with a highly evolved being who sought to share His wisdom with humanity. The “Master”, as Adamski calls him, makes clear that among all the planets of the solar system, only Earth humanity has not learned to live peacefully; “we do not kill our fellow man, even in self defence… Since we have learned that life is all-inclusive and that we are that life, we know that we can do nothing without hurting ourselves.”

He repeatedly explained that all life is interconnected: “A great fallacy which has grown on the people of Earth… is the custom of dividing into many parts that which should never be divided. We of other worlds have no such divisions but realise the relationship and the interdependence of all things.” He stressed that the space people are deeply concerned about the threat humanity poses, to itself, the planet and the stability of the solar system.

Someone who worked with Adamski was British writer/artist Benjamin Creme. He explained that the mission of the UFOs is wholly benevolent. “They come to aid”, in particular to clean up some of the pollution, specifically nuclear pollution (that we cannot even measure), that humanity discharges daily into the atmosphere.

Consistent with the view of Dr. Meade Layne, an American academic and early ufology researcher, Creme explains that the physical body of the space people and their spacecraft is composed of etheric matter, not dense physical like us. Science currently recognizes and can measure three states of physical matter – dense, liquid and gasous, but above these (according to esoteric science) exist four more levels, finer, subtler, but still physical. These are the etheric planes of matter, and all physical forms (including ours) have an etheric counterpart.

Without etheric vision the UFOs and the space people remain invisible – unless they choose to be seen. Then they simply alter the vibrational rate of their bodies and/or their spaceships, to the point where they come within  our range of vision.

Unity, unity, unity

Reports of other unexplained happenings, in addition to increased UFO sightings, have reached unprecedented levels in recent years. From the list of UFO accounts, one specific type appears of particular interest. Seen throughout the world hundreds of times, it looks like a star, but behaves like a spacecraft. It changes shape and color, pulsates and moves in the heavens, appears and disappears.

It is, according to Benjamin Creme, a sign arranged to stimulate a debate, a herald, that the Teacher for this time, Maitreya, is here in the world. Consistent with the ‘master’ Adamski met, Maitreya teaches that humanity is one, that unity is the natural order of things, and that sharing is key to solving our problems.

All is connected, not just within our planet, but the solar system and indeed the Universe; and the creation of unity is, as a wise One once said, “The underlying purpose of life.” The myth of separation needs to be shattered. Separation between people and nations feeds distrust, inflames hate, and triggers wars. We are one group/family called humanity; there is no division between us, the land upon which we live and That which is beyond thought and time.

When we grasp this essential fact then everything will change. New, just socio-economic systems will be designed based on this reality, true democratic forms of governance will be able to emerge, and fundamental change, so desperately needed if we are to save the planet can begin.

The sightings of UFOs and the unexplained happenings are signs of the times, transitional times of great importance, conflict and opportunity. The purpose of such signs is multi-faceted: to clean up some of our pollution; to prompt a re-evaluation of the destructive way we are living; to alert man to the presence of Maitreya in our midst, and among other things, to say loudly and clearly, separation is an illusion.

Their message, and the message of The Wise throughout the ages is one of love, of unity and brotherhood, tolerance and compassion. If we are to eradicate war, poverty and injustice we must reject anything and everything that feeds division.  This is the first and fundamental step; cast out completely those politicians/corporate voices who poison global life with their divisive hateful rhetoric; learn to share and live peacefully as brothers and sisters – or face the unimaginable.

Governments know well the truth, but in an attempt to maintain control of the populous, to perpetuate fear and social injustice and to promote ideologies of division and greed, have kept it hidden.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Graham Peebles.

The post The Church Committee Hearings: Losing Our Religion appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by John Kendall Hawkins.

The House select committee that has spent more than a year investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 reconvened Thursday for its first hearing in three months, focusing on former Republican President Donald Trump's involvement in the plan to stop lawmakers from certifying the 2020 election results.

The committee is expected to present Secret Service documents showing how agents stopped Trump from joining the mob of thousands of his supporters as they breached the Capitol, with some carrying weapons.

The hearing is also expected to address evidence showing that right-wing political strategist Roger Stone had close ties to the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, two groups whose members were present at the attack which was linked to the deaths of at least seven people.

Scheduled to begin at 1:00 pm EST, watch the hearing live:

The committee's hearings earlier this year covered attempts by Trump's close advisers to convince him to end his promotion of the "Big Lie" that he was the true winner of the 2020 presidential election, the former president's embrace of the false notion that former Vice President Mike Pence could certify him as the winner, and the violence that took place at the Capitol.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Julia Conley.

The House January 6 committee's first series of public hearings came to a close Thursday with a primetime event featuring fresh evidence that former President Donald Trump gave a "green light" to the right-wing mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol last year and ignored pleas to stop the violence.

"It's clear from the committee's work that Trump and his allies will go to illegal and violent lengths to seek power."

Sarah Matthews, former deputy press secretary, said Trump was treating the January 6 assault like a "celebratory event" and telling the insurrectionists that "what they were doing at the steps of the Capitol and entering the Capitol was okay, that they were justified in their anger."

Matthews was referring to Trump's tweet attacking then-Vice President Mike Pence for lacking the "courage" to help overturn the 2020 election as rioters entered the Capitol in an effort to block certification of President Joe Biden's victory.

Former deputy national security adviser Matt Pottinger, who resigned along with Matthews on January 6, told the House panel that Trump opted to pour "gasoline on the fire" by tweeting about Pence, further emboldening a mob that wanted to "hang" the former vice president.

Instead of trying to call off the violence, Trump sat for hours in front of the television, witnessing the Capitol attack unfold and resisting pressure to condemn the armed mob that he had ginned up with incessant lies about mass election fraud—falsehoods that many Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.), echoed.

The committee displayed security footage of Hawley fleeing after the mob breached the Capitol:

Meanwhile, "President Trump sat in his dining room and watched the attack on television while his senior-most staff, closest advisers, and family members begged him to do what is expected of any American president," said Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), who led Thursday's hearing alongside Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.).

Eventually Trump issued a video statement telling the attackers to "go home," but he closed his remarks by calling the rioters "very special." He also repeated his lie that the 2020 election was "fraudulent" and "stolen."

"We love you," Trump told the insurrectionists.

Thursday capped off a series that paired new revelations and hours of witness testimony with already-known facts to produce what legal experts and watchdog groups have described as an overwhelming case for prosecuting the former president for leading a criminal attempt to thwart the democratic process by force, increasing pressure on the Biden Justice Department to act.

"Over eight hearings, the January 6th Committee has provided undeniable proof that former President Trump and his allies planned, promoted, and paid for a criminal conspiracy to overturn the will of voters," said Sean Eldridge, founder and president of Stand Up America. "Tonight, we heard how members of the Secret Service were saying goodbye to their families as Trump egged on the violent, armed mob on January 6th. That should be chilling to every American."

"The threat to our democracy is not in the rearview mirror," Eldridge added. "More than 100 election-denying candidates are seeking office this year, including key election administration roles from county clerk to secretary of state. It's clear from the committee's work that Trump and his allies will go to illegal and violent lengths to seek power. They must be held accountable in the court of law—and we must hold them accountable at the ballot box."

Following Thursday's proceedings, the Not Above the Law Coalition projected the word "Prosecute" onto a building next to Trump Tower in New York City, underscoring its demand that Attorney General Merrick Garland bring criminal charges against the former president and likely 2024 contender.

"Trump did what he did—and refused for hours to stop the violence—because it was part of a determined, months-long plan to carry out a coup," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a member of the Not Above the Law Coalition.

"This was a crime against America," Weissman added. "It must be prosecuted."

The House panel announced Thursday that it will be holding more hearings in September as it continues its investigation into the origins of the January 6, 2021 attack and the president's role in sparking the violence.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

This week, at least four members of the press are scheduled to appear in court because of their work, and another was recently charged but no court date was set. If convicted, they face heavy fines and prison terms, according to news reports and reports by the Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ), a local advocacy and trade group.

“This new round of trials shows how Belarusian authorities are constantly resorting to ludicrous pretexts to silence independent reporting in the country,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Authorities should immediately release all imprisoned journalists, drop the charges against them, and ensure that members of the media can work freely and without fear of reprisal.”

Journalists who face upcoming court hearings include:

Yury Hantsarevich, a correspondent for the independent news website Intex-Press, is facing charges of “facilitating extremist activities” and is due to appear in a court in the southwestern city of Brest on Wednesday, according to BAJ.

Hantsarevich was detained in May after he reported on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions imposed on Russia. If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison under the Belarusian criminal code.

Aleh Hruzdzilovich, a freelance journalist and former correspondent for the U.S. Congress-funded broadcaster RFE/RL’s Belarusian service Radio Svaboda, is facing three civil suits over allegedly blocking traffic at protests he covered in 2020, according to Radio Svaboda.

If convicted, he faces a total fine of up to 56,000 Belarusian rubles (US$21,820); the three separate trials will be held in Minsk, the capital, beginning on July 15, July 22, and July 25, according to that report.

Hruzdzilovich is already serving an 18-month prison sentence after he was convicted on May 3 of participating in those protests, as CPJ documented at the time.

Katsiaryna Andreyeva, a correspondent with the Poland-based independent broadcaster Belsat TV, is due in court in the southeastern city of Homel on Wednesday to face treason charges, according to a Facebook post by her husband, Ihar Ilyash. Her trial started on July 4 but was suspended on July 6, Ilyash wrote.

If convicted, she could face up to 15 years in jail under the criminal code.

Andreyeva was detained in November 2020 while livestreaming protests against President Aleksandr Lukashenko’s continued rule, and is already serving a two-year prison sentence for organizing an illegal protest, as CPJ has documented.

Iryna Slaunikava, also a Belsat TV correspondent, is due in court in Homel on Thursday to face charges of “organizing or participating in gross violations of public order” and “creating an extremist group,” according to media reports. She has been detained since October 2021.

If convicted on the public order charge, she could face up to four years in prison; if convicted of creating an extremist group, she could face up to seven years. Her trial started on June 23 and was also suspended on July 6, according to those reports.

CPJ is also monitoring the case of Ksenia Lutskina, a former correspondent for the state broadcaster Belteleradio (BT), who has been detained since December 2020 and has been charged with “conspiracy to seize state power in an unconstitutional manner,” according to a July 7 statement by the Belarusian prosecutor general’s office.

If convicted, she could face up to 12 years in prison under the criminal code. CPJ was unable to immediately determine when she is scheduled to appear in court.

Separately, on June 29, the trials of three journalists with the independent Belarusian news agency BelaPAN, which began earlier that month, were suspended for “at least two months,” according to BAJ.

CPJ emailed the Belarusian Investigative Committee for comment, but did not receive any reply.

Belarusian authorities also recently sentenced Wikipedia editor Mark Bernstein to three years of restricted freedom for allegedly “organizing or participating in gross violations of public order” over his work editing articles about the Russian war in Ukraine, according to multiple news reports.

He was detained on March 11 and sentenced on June 24, according to those reports, which said he is allowed to live at his home and go to work, but must be home at prescribed hours and cannot leave the country or conduct certain activities.

Belarus was the fifth worst jailer of journalists in the world, with at least 19 journalists behind bars on December 1, 2021, when CPJ conducted its most recent prison census.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

In late June, as I arrived at my weekly union stewards training, I stumbled upon a group of fellow delegates talking about the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump. While these labor activists primarily discussed revelations that Trump allegedly approved of rioters’ call to ​“hang Mike Pence,” their political conversation flew in the face of the idea that working people are indifferent about the congressional hearings on last year’s near-coup. Don’t just take my anecdote as evidence — look at the nearly20 million people who watched the first hearing andthe 13 million who tuned in on June 28 to catch Cassidy Hutchinson’s surprise daytime testimony. CNN reports that almost six out of ten people in the United States are following the hearings, and CBS finds that nearly 70 percent believe it’s important to find out the truth about January 6. 

Hutchinson, a 26-year-old former White House aide, testified before the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol that Trump was willing to let the MAGA rioters assassinate then-Vice President Pence. She revealed that Trump and his chief of staff Mark Meadows — her former boss—both knew the threat of armed violence days in advance and did nothing to abate the danger. These revelations confirmed some of the worst fears about how close the United States came to seeing the 2020 presidential election overturned. 

The January 6 committee has not brought charges against the individuals involved, as the body does not have that power, though some members have floated recommending criminal referrals to the Justice Department. Federal elected officials such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D‑Calif.) believe that the tacit purpose of the committee’s current approach is to demonstrate to the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland that there is sufficient evidence and public support to bring charges against the orchestrators of the riot and unconstitutional putsch, from Trump on down. 

The chorus of popular demands for justice and the defense of democracy is where the Left — and especially the organized socialist movement — is desperately needed.

The Left should engage in, not ignore, a key democratic crisis.

Scanning the social media feeds among my left-wing friends, however, I hardly see a mention of the hearings, and when I do, it’s often dismissive of the congressional committee. I see little reporting of the investigation in prominent socialist and progressive magazines, including In These Times, while others provide no coverage at all. My own organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), issued only a single statement about January 6 since the day after the deadly attack, and nothing on the committee itself. This near silence is at odds not only with the millions of working people paying attention to the hearings, but also democratic socialist elected officials in Congress.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D‑N.Y.) revealed she feared more than death from the MAGA rioters, while her fellow DSA member Rep. Cori Bush (D‑Mo.) introduced legislation to expel members of the House of Representatives who aided in the January 6 attack. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.), meanwhile,posted in June that this hearing was not about ​“ideas” but ​“whether we maintain our democratic form of government.” These prominent socialists share the concern among the U.S. public, and especially the Democratic base, that the future state of elections is under threat. 

What I appreciated about being on the Left in the mid-2010s was the fact that we were much more on the pulse of the U.S. public than our liberal friends. The Left largely saw Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy in 2016 as fallible, and was able to offer viable alternatives. Through Bernie Sanders’ two presidential campaigns, in 2016 and 2020, hundreds of democratic socialists and Berniecrats won races for elected office across the country. Outside of the electoral realm, socialists today are plugging into the fast-growing and restive labor movement that’s successfully organizing shops at Amazon, Starbucks and other major companies.

But these successes could all be for naught if we completely lose our flawed — but still existing — liberal democracy. If our current system is replaced by an illiberal form of government, like exists in Hungary, the working class will suffer more. Hungary is now viewed as a model for the American far-Right, which hosted their Conservative Political Action Conference in the European country, as its leader, Viktor Orbán, has made elections a mere formality while expanding the secret police. 

One way to prevent this authoritarian slide is through engaging in public pressure to push Garland and other Justice Department officials to prosecute Trump and his allies. That kind of campaign cannot be ​“left to the liberals” as some are wont to say. Socialists should be front and center, demanding that there be actual repercussions for the anti-democratic effort to overturn the election.

We cannot have a multi-racial working-class socialist society without first achieving a functioning democracy. Socialists have long stood for improving U.S. democratic institutions, as imperfect as they are. We fought for women’s suffrage and were militant participants in the Civil Rights Movement. At its core, the socialist movement believes in not just defending democracy, but spreading it to other realms outside of politics, from the economy to the workplace. 

The current reaction against liberal democracy is part of an effort to roll back reproductive rights and racial justice gains made in this country that required decades of struggle to win. We cannot let the anti-democratic, anti-choice and racist forces win. Socialists must again lead by example.

If we don’t, then reactionaries like Pence and Rep. Liz Cheney (R‑Wyo.) are likely to become the heroes of this effort, simply because they’re Republicans following their constitutional duty. Rather than ceding this ground to liberals and the GOP, socialists and organizers on the Left should step up pressure on Congress to pass Rep. Bush’s bill to punish those guilty of trying to overthrow the will of the voters. A national effort to raise awareness of this legislation, including a collaboration between DSA members and the congresswoman, could help build pressure to actually punish those politicians involved in the failed putsch. 

It’s easy to hope that January 6 was a one-off incident. But anti-democratic forces rarely give up so easily. Just look at the history of Chile. In that country there was a small military rebellion months before the right-wing coup on September 11, 1973 which ousted Salvador Allende. For a time, the democratically elected socialist government had officers and generals who obeyed the constitution. But facing enough pressure from coup-plotters and foreign agitators, that loyalty eventually ended.

The same could happen here, especially as anti-Trump Republicans lose primaries, shifting the GOP toward pure fealty to the former president. Trump and his supporters are hard at work stacking the deck, from local election boards all the way up to the Supreme Court, which could have monumental consequences in determining future presidential elections. 

Trump has already signaled that he is likely to run again in 2024, and he still refuses to accept the 2020 election results, sowing distrust in the democratic system among his base. He’s made no secret of his desire to take power, no matter the legality or constitutionality of his means. We narrowly escaped his attempt two years ago. In the future, we might not be so lucky. 

This is why the Left should engage in, not ignore, a key democratic crisis. I want to be able to go to my union family and say ​“here’s what socialists are doing to hold the perpetrators of January 6 accountable.” Leftists have long fought to defend and expand liberal democracy in our goals of building a socialist government. Let’s continue that tradition.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by David Duhalde.

Citing a "mountain of new information" requiring analysis, the congressional committee investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol announced Wednesday that it will delay the hearings into the deadly insurrection until next month.

"We've taken in some additional information that's going to require additional work. So rather than present hearings that have not been the quality of the hearings in the past we made a decision to just move into sometime in July," committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told reporters, according to The Hill.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md) explained that "there's been a deluge of new evidence since we got started. And we just need to catch our breath, go through the new evidence, and then incorporate it into the hearings we have planned."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney attributed the delay to a "mountain of new information that's come in and that we have to go through."

Before pausing, the panel will hold one more round of hearings on Thursday, when witnesses will testify about efforts by then-President Donald Trump and his supporters to pressure U.S. Justice Department officials to help overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Thompson said the committee needs time to review video footage it received from documentarian Alex Holder—which reportedly includes previously unseen footage of Trump and his family—new information from the National Archives and tips received via a special hotline.

The congressman assured reporters the committee would reconvene after the House returns from recess on July 11.

"We will announce dates and times for those hearings soon," he said.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

As the ongoing January 6 congressional hearings further confirm the threat posed by former President Donald Trump's coup attempt last year, watchdog groups emphasized following Tuesday's testimony that the GOP's election subversion efforts across the United States are continuing—and intensifying—in the present.

“Long before January 6, attempts were underway to illegally steal our votes," said Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen, referring to the Trump campaign's coordinated push to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election—an effort that has been a central focus of the House select committee's public hearings thus far.

"We must hold those involved in this criminal conspiracy accountable to make sure this never happens again."

"Long after January 6, the efforts to sabotage elections across the country are still underway," Gilbert added. "State legislatures around the nation have introduced more than 200 bills in the past year to interfere with elections on a partisan basis, following Trump's lead. Republicans are threatening election administrators who won't go along with them and are running candidates for election administrative offices from secretaries of state to county clerks who still want to overturn the 2020 election."

In an analysis released last month, the Brennan Center for Justice noted that Trump's "Big Lie" of widespread voter fraud is animating Republican midterm campaigns for key posts across the country, including positions that will be tasked with overseeing the 2024 elections.

The Republican campaigns for critical posts, according to the Brennan Center, are being bankrolled by some of the same big-money donors whose cash helped fuel the January 6 attack.

"Look at Pennsylvania, where State Sen. Doug Mastri­ano, a lead­ing proponent of the Big Lie that fraud decided the 2020 elec­tion, won the GOP primary for governor," the group observed. "The Repub­lican Party of Minnesota recently endorsed for governor Scott Jensen, who has called the elec­tion process 'bastard­ized' and implied that the Minnesota secret­ary of state could be jailed for it."

"Michigan Repub­lic­ans," the analysis continued, "nomin­ated for secret­ary of state Kristina Karamo, who claims there is a 'massive coverup' of 2020 elec­tion fraud. The list of elec­tion deniers running for office goes on and on."

That long list includes businessman Jim Marchant, the GOP secretary of state nominee in Nevada who helped form the America First Secretary of State Coalition, a group of Trump loyalists vying to take charge of the election process in a number of battleground states.

The new coalition includes 14 Republican secretary of state contenders who have cast President Joe Biden's 2020 victory as illegitimate.

"We're in a really dangerous spot right now," David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, said last week. "The pieces of tinder being laid right in front of our eyes."

Also last week, GOP officials in Otero County, New Mexico refused to certify the results of the state's recent primary election, baselessly alleging that local voting machines aren't trustworthy—a claim that Trump made repeatedly in 2020.

While a court order ultimately forced the Republican officials to certify the results, expert observers said the episode offers an alarming preview of what could be in store if Trump loyalists win crucial positions nationwide.

"We are in scary territory," Jennifer Morrell, a former election official in Colorado and Utah, told the Associated Press. "It's like a cancer, a virus. It's metastasizing and growing."

Just this past weekend, the Texas Republican Party adopted a platform that explicitly rejects Biden's 2020 win and asserts he "was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States."

In a statement Tuesday after the House January 6 committee's latest hearing—which focused on Trump's role in a fake electors scheme and his pressure campaign against state officials—Stand Up American founder Sean Eldridge warned that "MAGA Republicans are not giving up" despite the former president's failure to overturn the 2020 results.

"They're now trying to pack election administration offices—from secretary of state to county clerk—with election deniers whose loyalty rests with Trump instead of our democracy," said Eldridge. "We must hold those involved in this criminal conspiracy accountable to make sure this never happens again."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Members of the Patriot Front, and their founder, Thomas Ryan Rousseau, second from left, prepare to march with anti-abortion activists in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 21, 2022.

Photo: Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by James Risen.

This column was originally published in Not Shutting Up, a newsletter about the issues facing journalism and democracy. Sign up for it here.

In July of 1973, a young, preppy-looking lawyer named Gordon Strachan appeared before the Senate Watergate Committee and acknowledged his role in the cover-up of America’s most consequential burglary.

When he finished, a senator asked 29-year-old Strachan if he had any advice for young people interested in public service. “Stay away,” he said. “It may not be the type of advice you could look back and want to give, but my advice would be to stay away.”

I was among the millions of Americans glued to the television that summer, a gangly teenager with dreams of working some day in politics. The Watergate hearings changed the nation’s perception of President Richard Nixon, laying the groundwork for his impeachment.

The hearings, and the role played by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in exposing the Nixon administration’s corruption, inspired a generation of young people to become investigative journalists. I was one of them.

In a cosmic twist, this month’s House hearings on the Jan. 6 attack coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Watergate break-in. (For history buffs, the precise date the hapless team was caught trying to break into the Democratic Party’s headquarters was June 17.)

Many commentators have argued that given the current fractured political and media culture, Nixon would not have left office had the crimes of 1972 and 1973 taken place today; he could have been confident that 34 senators of his own party would stand by him, regardless of the evidence.

I’m not so sure. It’s certainly true that the major television networks broadcast gavel-to-gavel coverage on what amounted to nearly all channels available in that pre-cable period of our nation’s history. It would be decades before the creation of a network that would deliver an alternate reality in which an event like the Jan. 6 hearings could go mostly uncovered.

But the view that the America of 2022 is divided as never before ignores the staggering level of popular support Nixon enjoyed. His reelection in 1972 was one of the biggest landslides in American history, nothing like the knife-edge presidential races we’ve experienced over the past two decades. George McGovern, the Democratic candidate, ended up 18 million votes behind Nixon and carried only one state — implacably liberal Massachusetts — and the District of Columbia. The map on election night was a coast-to-coast sea of red.

Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

As the facts about Watergate came to light after the election, minds changed. Strachan, the witness whose testimony made such an impression on me, testified that he was the courier who delivered cash from a White House safe to a Nixon campaign official. Strachan acknowledged that he “became more than a little suspicious” when the official put on gloves before accepting the package.

Nixon had his defenders in Congress, some of whom stayed with him to the bitter end. I still remember my anger in watching Rep. Charles Sandman, a New Jersey Republican, aggressively deny that Nixon had played any role in the crimes traced to every one of his closest aides.

The evidence ultimately prevailed. Sandman and the other Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee abandoned the president after the release of the “smoking gun” tapes in which Nixon directed the CIA to block an FBI investigation of Watergate on national security grounds. By then, Nixon’s approval rating had fallen to 24%.

The question that hangs over the Jan. 6 hearings is whether the emergence of similarly damning facts or documents would move either the Republican base or its leaders in Congress. The prevailing wisdom says no, and there are plenty of reasons to argue that a strikingly large portion of former President Donald Trump’s base will dismiss any disclosures by the media or members of Congress as “fake news.”

After initially condemning the attacks on the Capitol, a range of prominent Republicans took roughly that tack. Some likened the mobs to tourists on a rowdy visit. The Republican National Committee declared that the attacks were “legitimate political discourse.” Those assertions stood in stark contrast to the videos we assembled from the Parler app, which showed the violence of Jan. 6 from the perspective of those who filmed and posted it. Similar video evidence played an important role in the first night of the Jan. 6 hearings.

In its hearing Monday, the committee focused on a line of inquiry that our reporters explored this year: the willingness of “Stop the Steal” advocates to push theories they knew were disproven or dubious. That story took readers inside the small group that honed such arguments as the bogus ability of Dominion Voting Systems machines to “flip” votes from one candidate to another.

On Monday, the committee released testimony from Trump aides who said the president had embraced claims about stolen votes without any regard as to whether they were accurate or even plausible. William P. Barr, the former attorney general, said in taped remarks that he feared the president had become “detached from reality if he really believes this stuff.”

“When I went into this and would tell him how crazy some of these allegations were, there was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were,” Barr said.

Over the years, the effects of congressional inquiries have been decidedly uneven. The investigation into illicit support of the anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua by the administration of President Ronald Reagan turned the White House ringleader of the operation, Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, into a right-wing celebrity. I covered those hearings as a young reporter, and their main value, from my perspective, was the Republicans’ dissenting report that asserted presidents have every right to defy Congress on foreign policy issues. That document, written under the direction of then-Rep. Dick Cheney, turned out to be a valuable blueprint for how Cheney, as vice president, and the administration of President George W. Bush would deal with Congress in the post-9/11 era.

On the other hand, the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings ended the demagogic power of Sen. Joe McCarthy, a Wisconsin Republican who used congressional investigations as a weapon against left-leaning government officials. In a fascinating link in the chain of history, those hearings focused on the conduct of Roy Cohn, McCarthy’s chief counsel and a lawyer who would come to school a young Trump in the scorched-earth approach to political and legal opponents. As president, Trump famously asked, “Where’s my Roy Cohn?” when he felt White House lawyers weren’t sufficiently aggressive in defending his interests.

All of this is to say one should be cautious in predicting the effect congressional investigations will have on public opinion. Learning that Trump’s advisers were divided between Team Crazy and Team Normal, and that Team Crazy clearly had the upper hand, might disturb a fair number of voters. I’ve seen congressional hearings change minds, including my own.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Stephen Engelberg.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Intercepted.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This content originally appeared on Intercepted and was authored by The Intercept.

On Monday, the House Select Commit­tee to Invest­ig­ate the Janu­ary 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol holds the second of several public hear­ings to reveal a detailed account of the insur­rec­tion and the indi­vidu­als behind it. These hear­ings mark a pivotal first step in repu­di­at­ing the attack and hold­ing its perpet­rat­ors account­able for one of the most alarm­ing assaults on Amer­ican demo­cracy in history. Today's hear­ing also serves an addi­tional crit­ical purpose: examin­ing the elec­tion sabot­age scheme that fueled the insur­rec­tion and its ongo­ing damage to our demo­cracy.

Passing legis­la­tion will require rally­ing sustained polit­ical pres­sure, and the commit­tee's hear­ings provide a crit­ical oppor­tun­ity to do exactly that.

The damage, detailed in Bren­nan Center testi­mony submit­ted to the commit­tee in April, is strik­ing. By track­ing the Big Lie that Donald Trump actu­ally won reelec­tion, our research demon­strates that a direct through line exists between 2020 elec­tion denial, the elec­tion sabot­age scheme behind the insur­rec­tion, and ongo­ing efforts to thwart the demo­cratic process. In other words, the same Big Lie that fueled the insur­rec­tion contin­ues to rever­ber­ate across the coun­try, driv­ing bids to under­mine voting rights, inter­fere with elect­oral processes, and attack impar­tial elec­tion admin­is­trat­ors.

Of course, it bears repeat­ing that the Big Lie is, in fact, a lie. Its theory of a "stolen" elec­tion relies on racially charged alleg­a­tions of voter fraud, ballot irreg­u­lar­it­ies, and conspir­acies to other­wise "rig" the 2020 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. Each of these claims has been thor­oughly disproven. None of the more than 60 lawsuits chal­len­ging the results of the 2020 elec­tion succeeded in prov­ing fraud, and Pres­id­ent Trump's own offi­cials deemed the 2020 elec­tion "the most secure in Amer­ican history." Nonethe­less, these false claims drove the brazen scheme to over­turn the elec­tion results through vote suppres­sion, base­less litig­a­tion, and even outright attempts to over­ride legit­im­ate votes. Together, these efforts spiraled into the Janu­ary 6 attack. But while this plot may have failed, the Big Lie is far from over.

Take, for example, aggress­ive devel­op­ments in state legis­latures. Efforts to pass restrict­ive voting laws hit unpre­ced­en­ted heights follow­ing the 2020 elec­tion and continue at a rapid pace this year. States also face a new, burgeon­ing trend in the form of legis­la­tion that enables partisan actors to meddle in elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion and vote-count­ing processes—other­wise known as elec­tion inter­fer­ence legis­la­tion.

These attacks are not coin­cid­ental. Bren­nan Center research found that in 2021, the vast major­ity of these bills were sponsored by the same state legis­lat­ors who publicly ques­tioned the valid­ity of the 2020 elec­tion. And in many cases, these spon­sors justi­fied their legis­la­tion using the same discred­ited claims of wide­spread voter fraud and a stolen elec­tion that fueled the insur­rec­tion.

Our research also compared the text of new restrict­ive voting and elec­tion inter­fer­ence legis­la­tion with false alleg­a­tions made in lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies to over­turn the 2020 elec­tion. Like clock­work, the same disproven theor­ies of wide­spread voter fraud, ballot irreg­u­lar­it­ies, and conspir­acies made in those lawsuits resur­faced with remark­able specificity in legis­la­tion intro­duced in 2021. Indeed, of the 17 states in which courts reviewed lawsuits chal­len­ging the 2020 elec­tion, 15 saw legis­la­tion that directly incor­por­ated false claims from those suits.

Make no mistake—these legis­lat­ive attacks work as inten­ded. Mount­ing evid­ence shows that new voting restric­tions already are disen­fran­chising voters, partic­u­larly voters of color, in post-2020 elec­tions.

Beyond legis­la­tion, the Big Lie's damage also extends to attacks on impar­tial elec­tion admin­is­trat­ors. Across the coun­try, vigil­antes (and in some cases, other state offi­cials) are invok­ing false claims of voter fraud and a stolen elec­tion to threaten offi­cials from both parties for simply doing their job. These attacks—which range from racist and gendered harass­ment and death threats to threats of crim­inal prosec­u­tion — risk creat­ing a reten­tion crisis among exper­i­enced elec­tion admin­is­trat­ors. Dozens of offi­cials in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wiscon­sin, and Nevada already left their posi­tions. Nation­wide, one in five local elec­tion offi­cials surveyed by the Bren­nan Center plan to leave their posi­tion before 2024.

As many elec­tion offi­cials prepare to resign, elec­tion denial also threatens to upend the races by which many of them are chosen. This year, for example, 27 states will hold elec­tions for secret­ary of state—the offi­cial who typic­ally serves as a state's chief elec­tion officer. At least 21 current candid­ates in these races espouse the Big Lie's theory of a stolen elec­tion. And as this disin­form­a­tion prolif­er­ates, campaigns are rais­ing more money, from more donors, with greater reli­ance than ever before on out-of-state dona­tions. In other words, as Big Lie–driven onslaughts push exper­i­enced elec­tion offi­cials out of their posi­tions, their replace­ments will in many instances emerge from polit­ic­ally charged, nation­al­ized races featur­ing elec­tion deniers. Look no further than last month's primary elec­tions to see this phenomenon in action.

The insur­rec­tion made one thing clear: our exist­ing guard­rails cannot protect us from anti­demo­cratic attacks. As the Big Lie contin­ues to wreak havoc on our demo­cracy, and with the 2024 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion around the corner, inac­tion is not an option.

In the short term, Amer­ic­ans and our insti­tu­tions must mobil­ize to stave off the current wave of attacks. Many sectors of soci­ety and govern­ment have a role to play in thwart­ing Big Lie–driven efforts to sabot­age future elec­tions. And we know that this mobil­iz­a­tion works. Even when confron­ted with a global pandemic and disin­form­a­tion-fueled assaults on voters and the elect­oral process, 2020 saw a wide range of forces—includ­ing elec­tion offi­cials, other state govern­ment entit­ies, courts, community groups, busi­nesses, and journ­al­ists—mobil­ize to safe­guard the elec­tion with great success.

Ulti­mately, Congress also must act to strengthen our demo­cratic guard­rails. The push to outrun or out-organ­ize vote suppres­sion and elec­tion inter­fer­ence, while essen­tial, can only go so far and last for so long. The narrowly defeated Free­dom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would address many of these prob­lems by, for example, estab­lish­ing national stand­ards for cast­ing and count­ing ballots in federal elec­tions and revital­iz­ing the Voting Rights Act's protec­tions against racial discrim­in­a­tion in voting. It also would limit oppor­tun­it­ies for partisan inter­fer­ence in elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion, increase protec­tions for elec­tion offi­cials, and curb disin­form­a­tion in elec­tions.

Passing legis­la­tion will require rally­ing sustained polit­ical pres­sure, and the commit­tee's hear­ings provide a crit­ical oppor­tun­ity to do exactly that. The multi­pronged plot to over­turn the elec­tion and the viol­ent events of Janu­ary 6 must never happen again, and legis­la­tion remains the best and only way to ensure that history never repeats itself. We must demand it.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Lauren Miller, Wendy Weiser.

On Monday, the House Select Commit­tee to Invest­ig­ate the Janu­ary 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol holds the second of several public hear­ings to reveal a detailed account of the insur­rec­tion and the indi­vidu­als behind it. These hear­ings mark a pivotal first step in repu­di­at­ing the attack and hold­ing its perpet­rat­ors account­able for one of the most alarm­ing assaults on Amer­ican demo­cracy in history. Today's hear­ing also serves an addi­tional crit­ical purpose: examin­ing the elec­tion sabot­age scheme that fueled the insur­rec­tion and its ongo­ing damage to our demo­cracy.

Passing legis­la­tion will require rally­ing sustained polit­ical pres­sure, and the commit­tee's hear­ings provide a crit­ical oppor­tun­ity to do exactly that.

The damage, detailed in Bren­nan Center testi­mony submit­ted to the commit­tee in April, is strik­ing. By track­ing the Big Lie that Donald Trump actu­ally won reelec­tion, our research demon­strates that a direct through line exists between 2020 elec­tion denial, the elec­tion sabot­age scheme behind the insur­rec­tion, and ongo­ing efforts to thwart the demo­cratic process. In other words, the same Big Lie that fueled the insur­rec­tion contin­ues to rever­ber­ate across the coun­try, driv­ing bids to under­mine voting rights, inter­fere with elect­oral processes, and attack impar­tial elec­tion admin­is­trat­ors.

Of course, it bears repeat­ing that the Big Lie is, in fact, a lie. Its theory of a "stolen" elec­tion relies on racially charged alleg­a­tions of voter fraud, ballot irreg­u­lar­it­ies, and conspir­acies to other­wise "rig" the 2020 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. Each of these claims has been thor­oughly disproven. None of the more than 60 lawsuits chal­len­ging the results of the 2020 elec­tion succeeded in prov­ing fraud, and Pres­id­ent Trump's own offi­cials deemed the 2020 elec­tion "the most secure in Amer­ican history." Nonethe­less, these false claims drove the brazen scheme to over­turn the elec­tion results through vote suppres­sion, base­less litig­a­tion, and even outright attempts to over­ride legit­im­ate votes. Together, these efforts spiraled into the Janu­ary 6 attack. But while this plot may have failed, the Big Lie is far from over.

Take, for example, aggress­ive devel­op­ments in state legis­latures. Efforts to pass restrict­ive voting laws hit unpre­ced­en­ted heights follow­ing the 2020 elec­tion and continue at a rapid pace this year. States also face a new, burgeon­ing trend in the form of legis­la­tion that enables partisan actors to meddle in elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion and vote-count­ing processes—other­wise known as elec­tion inter­fer­ence legis­la­tion.

These attacks are not coin­cid­ental. Bren­nan Center research found that in 2021, the vast major­ity of these bills were sponsored by the same state legis­lat­ors who publicly ques­tioned the valid­ity of the 2020 elec­tion. And in many cases, these spon­sors justi­fied their legis­la­tion using the same discred­ited claims of wide­spread voter fraud and a stolen elec­tion that fueled the insur­rec­tion.

Our research also compared the text of new restrict­ive voting and elec­tion inter­fer­ence legis­la­tion with false alleg­a­tions made in lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies to over­turn the 2020 elec­tion. Like clock­work, the same disproven theor­ies of wide­spread voter fraud, ballot irreg­u­lar­it­ies, and conspir­acies made in those lawsuits resur­faced with remark­able specificity in legis­la­tion intro­duced in 2021. Indeed, of the 17 states in which courts reviewed lawsuits chal­len­ging the 2020 elec­tion, 15 saw legis­la­tion that directly incor­por­ated false claims from those suits.

Make no mistake—these legis­lat­ive attacks work as inten­ded. Mount­ing evid­ence shows that new voting restric­tions already are disen­fran­chising voters, partic­u­larly voters of color, in post-2020 elec­tions.

Beyond legis­la­tion, the Big Lie's damage also extends to attacks on impar­tial elec­tion admin­is­trat­ors. Across the coun­try, vigil­antes (and in some cases, other state offi­cials) are invok­ing false claims of voter fraud and a stolen elec­tion to threaten offi­cials from both parties for simply doing their job. These attacks—which range from racist and gendered harass­ment and death threats to threats of crim­inal prosec­u­tion — risk creat­ing a reten­tion crisis among exper­i­enced elec­tion admin­is­trat­ors. Dozens of offi­cials in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wiscon­sin, and Nevada already left their posi­tions. Nation­wide, one in five local elec­tion offi­cials surveyed by the Bren­nan Center plan to leave their posi­tion before 2024.

As many elec­tion offi­cials prepare to resign, elec­tion denial also threatens to upend the races by which many of them are chosen. This year, for example, 27 states will hold elec­tions for secret­ary of state—the offi­cial who typic­ally serves as a state's chief elec­tion officer. At least 21 current candid­ates in these races espouse the Big Lie's theory of a stolen elec­tion. And as this disin­form­a­tion prolif­er­ates, campaigns are rais­ing more money, from more donors, with greater reli­ance than ever before on out-of-state dona­tions. In other words, as Big Lie–driven onslaughts push exper­i­enced elec­tion offi­cials out of their posi­tions, their replace­ments will in many instances emerge from polit­ic­ally charged, nation­al­ized races featur­ing elec­tion deniers. Look no further than last month's primary elec­tions to see this phenomenon in action.

The insur­rec­tion made one thing clear: our exist­ing guard­rails cannot protect us from anti­demo­cratic attacks. As the Big Lie contin­ues to wreak havoc on our demo­cracy, and with the 2024 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion around the corner, inac­tion is not an option.

In the short term, Amer­ic­ans and our insti­tu­tions must mobil­ize to stave off the current wave of attacks. Many sectors of soci­ety and govern­ment have a role to play in thwart­ing Big Lie–driven efforts to sabot­age future elec­tions. And we know that this mobil­iz­a­tion works. Even when confron­ted with a global pandemic and disin­form­a­tion-fueled assaults on voters and the elect­oral process, 2020 saw a wide range of forces—includ­ing elec­tion offi­cials, other state govern­ment entit­ies, courts, community groups, busi­nesses, and journ­al­ists—mobil­ize to safe­guard the elec­tion with great success.

Ulti­mately, Congress also must act to strengthen our demo­cratic guard­rails. The push to outrun or out-organ­ize vote suppres­sion and elec­tion inter­fer­ence, while essen­tial, can only go so far and last for so long. The narrowly defeated Free­dom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would address many of these prob­lems by, for example, estab­lish­ing national stand­ards for cast­ing and count­ing ballots in federal elec­tions and revital­iz­ing the Voting Rights Act's protec­tions against racial discrim­in­a­tion in voting. It also would limit oppor­tun­it­ies for partisan inter­fer­ence in elec­tion admin­is­tra­tion, increase protec­tions for elec­tion offi­cials, and curb disin­form­a­tion in elec­tions.

Passing legis­la­tion will require rally­ing sustained polit­ical pres­sure, and the commit­tee's hear­ings provide a crit­ical oppor­tun­ity to do exactly that. The multi­pronged plot to over­turn the elec­tion and the viol­ent events of Janu­ary 6 must never happen again, and legis­la­tion remains the best and only way to ensure that history never repeats itself. We must demand it.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Lauren Miller, Wendy Weiser.

The U.S. Capitol on the one-year anniversary of the January 6 riot in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2022.

Photo: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Sandra Garza, partner of late U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, right, embraces Caroline Edwards, a U.S. Capitol Police officer injured in the January 6 riot, in Washington, D.C., on June 9, 2022.

Photo: Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by James Risen.

As the hearings of the special House Committee investigating the insurrection on Jan 6, 2021 get under way this week, a wide array of organizations and experts are weighing in on the importance of these hearings, and their potential impact on the public's understanding of the events surrounding the insurrection. These are important points because too many of us have a warped view of what actually happened that day. But opinion about the past is going to be hard to change.

Our democracy is under far graver threat than most people realize, the hearings must show it, allowing voters to see how they can prepare themselves and protect our democracy.

The hearings need to look ahead and lay out, in clear terms, what we have learned about the threat of future election violence—and exactly how the same groups involved in the insurrection are now poised to instigate violence in future elections. Because our democracy is under far graver threat than most people realize, the hearings must show it, allowing voters to see how they can prepare themselves and protect our democracy.

My hope for the hearings

I am fairly confident that the hearings will provide a comprehensive account of what Protect Democracy's Grant Tudor has aptly described as the "bracing" scope of the attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential election, including:

"using government resources to promote the president's reelection; soliciting state and local officials to commit election fraud; pressuring the vice president to delay or block the counting of electoral votes; enlisting the Justice Department to sanction the overturning of election results; refusing to officially green-light the operational transition of administrations; devising plans to employ the military to seize ballots and voting machines; strategizing with members of Congress to assemble fake slates of electors; and then inciting a lethal riot at the eleventh hour."

I am less confident, but hopeful, that the hearings will clearly articulate, and produce some consensus about, what Congress must do over the next several months to keep the law itself from being used as a weapon to bludgeon our democracy, especially in 2024.

For example, UCLA's Rick Hasen recently articulated how revising the Electoral Count Act could go a long way toward resolving the legal ambiguities that anti-democratic politicians may use as justification for choosing which votes get certified. Hasen and others have repeatedly pointed out that federal requirements regarding paper ballots and other procedural safeguards could greatly strengthen the integrity of our elections.

The need for federal election protections are a necessary, but insufficient, focus of the hearings. Professor Hasen is not overstating the matter when he concludes, "If these hearings don't spur action by this summer or fall, expect Congress to do nothing before the 2024 elections, at which point American democracy will be in great danger."

But, whether Congress takes action or not—and they may not—the public needs to understand the nature of the threat we face in the coming elections.

Congressional action is needed

The evidence is increasingly clear that we are likely to face attempts to subvert the next election through voter intimidation, violence, and the induced chaos that ensues. As POLITICO recently reported, Trump loyalists and partisan operatives are amassing an "army" of "volunteers prepared to challenge voters at Democratic-majority polling places, developing a website to connect those workers to local lawyers and establishing a network of party-friendly district attorneys who could intervene to block vote counts at certain precincts." Targeting large cities in battleground states such as Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta (cities with a high concentration of voters of color), people are reportedly now being trained to initiate legal conflicts at the polling place that can disrupt voting and then use those actions "as a vehicle for rejecting vote counts from that precinct."

What are the odds that "legal conflict" initiated by trained subversives, hopped up on "stop the steal" conspiracy theories, might result in physical conflict? The US has a long history of partisan "observers" intimidating marginalized groups to weaken their political power, but we have not seen anything on this scale in recent memory.

The Department of Homeland Security has already warned that "those harboring grievances over the 2020 election and fueled by misinformation may feel compelled to respond to the election season using violence." There is a heightened threat that voters will be terrorized in 2022 and 2024, and the Congressional hearings need to be clear on this point.

In this regard, even a revision of Electoral Count Act would come too late to protect against violence because it would be primarily focused instead on shutting down the legal strategy to subvert elections. Violence and intimidation are likely to come before the lawsuits, brought to us by the foot soldiers of the election subversion army.

Additional federal legislation could help prevent outbreaks of election-related violence. The US House of Representatives passed the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022 on May 18th with a vote of 222 to 203, largely along party lines. The Act requires federal law enforcement agencies (Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI) to set up the infrastructure to combat domestic terrorism and, in particular, white supremacy-based hate crimes and acts of terror.

The Union of Concerned Scientists supports the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022, as do many of the nation's leading voting rights organizations, such as The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Congress should also provide greater resources for the groundwork efforts of these groups to prevent voter intimidation, coercion, and violence. For example, the Election Protection coalition is among the largest organizations nationwide working to ensure that every voter can cast a vote and have it counted. Americans need to learn more about election protection from the hearings.

Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and other relevant federal agencies also need to provide greater resources for emergency preparations, including violence and attacks on election administration. Local election agencies should be incorporating best practices and lessons learned from international experiences with election-related violence.

Finally, the hearings need to inform the public about how to enforce their rights as voters. We need public deliberation about what limits should be placed on the actions of military officers, law enforcement, militia members, and armed vigilantes around polling places. Most battleground states do not explicitly ban firearms at polling places, but existing federal protections against intimidation can be enforced by a vigilant public.

The evidence strongly suggests that voters and communities are being targeted for political violence and it is imperative that they understand what is coming and how to prepare for it. The House Committee hearings provide a unique opportunity for the public to see how the failed insurrection on January 6th set in motion a series of events that is likely to result in coordinated violence and disruption in upcoming elections.

The insurrection isn't over. Being better informed about future threats can help protect voters from intimidation and violence.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Michael Latner.

The House committee investigating Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election and the deadly January 6 insurrection at the Capitol holds its first public hearing Thursday night in primetime, as five members of the far-right Proud Boys are indicted for seditious conspiracy. These hearings will provide voters with a choice between those who will want to continue to defend free and fair elections and those who want to take away the will of the people,” says Kristen Doerer, managing editor of Right Wing Watch, who previews what to expect.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

On Thursday evening, the House Select Committee investigating the sacking of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 will hold the first of its prime-time, televised public hearings. The committee has done an exhaustive investigation, interviewing a thousand witnesses, looking at tens of thousands of documents.

The committee will face a right-wing media complex—Fox News, Newsmax, the QAnon network and legions of poisonous talk radio hosts—that will no doubt ignore its evidence and savage its conclusions.

The hearings will reveal new information about what was, in fact, a multi-layered effort to overturn the results of a presidential election, driven by the White House and involving Republican legislators, operatives, state officials, and donors. The hearings will ask every American to understand how vulnerable our democracy is, and how close we came to losing it.

The question, of course, is whether it is too late to save our democracy. Donald Trump has persisted in propagating his Big Lie about the election, despite the fact that court after court, many times judges appointed by Trump, his own attorney general and Justice Department, and partisan audits of votes in several states universally found no evidence of fraud that could have come close to making a difference in the election result.

No matter. Trump has persisted, the right-wing media led by Fox News has echoed his claims, and today, two-thirds of Republican voters say Joe Biden is not the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential election and the election was stolen from Trump. Many Republicans join Trump in praising as patriots those who sacked the Capitol.

The Big Lie goes even further than this. Across the country, in the Congress and in the states, Republican officials have systematically blocked efforts to strengthen our electoral system, and instead, in states where they have power, have passed a range of measures to make voting more difficult.

Driven by Trump, they have also supported extremists for what used to be nonpartisan posts in charge of the administration of elections. In some states, they have given the Republican legislatures greater power to overturn the results of the elections. By 2024, Republicans in about 20 states will be primed and eager to ensure that their candidate wins—no matter what the voters say.

In Congress, Republicans have filibustered attempts to reform our electoral laws to make clear how the electoral college works and how it must reflect the votes of the people. They have filibustered against attempts to set federal standards for voting that would make registration and voting far easier. They have even blocked efforts to revive the Voting Rights Act, the keystone of the civil rights movement that was gutted by five right-wing, Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices.

The last time the Voting Rights Act was re-authorized, it received nearly universal bipartisan support in the House and Senate. No more. Now, ensuring the right of Blacks to vote meets with partisan opposition.

There's the rub. Republicans in polls say that they believe that votes are counted honestly in states that vote Republican, in rural and suburban areas where Republicans congregate. They say that fraud takes place in urban areas—areas where Blacks and Hispanics live. Mail-in ballots, which Trump objects to, are fine in Republican areas, but somehow illegitimate in urban areas. When senior citizens used mail-in ballots, there was no problem. Now that more African Americans and Hispanics use them, they are viewed as suspect.

These fears are compounded by the so-called "replacement theory," a favorite of the right-wing media. The replacement theory essentially argues that Black, Hispanic and Asian American votes are tainted because Democrats allegedly are plotting to use immigrants to "replace" white majorities.

America, in this view, must remain a white, Christian, male-dominated country. And if that takes subverting the democracy to ensure that the minority can rule, so be it.

The Jan. 6 congressional committee hearings are, in many ways, a plea for Americans to defend their democracy. This should be as popular as apple pie—but it won't be. The committee will face a right-wing media complex—Fox News, Newsmax, the QAnon network and legions of poisonous talk radio hosts —that will no doubt ignore its evidence and savage its conclusions. More than eight in 10 Republicans who get their news from Fox News believe the election was stolen.

America has experienced brutal battles over its democracy before. The Civil War was fought over whether the United States would remain united and free. The civil rights movement had to overcome entrenched resistance to end apartheid Jim Crow in the South. Now democracy is at stake once more. Will Americans again rally to defend our democracy or will they succumb to a Big Lie grounded in racial animus that will drive our country apart? The Jan. 6 committee hearings are yet another chapter in that ongoing battle.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jesse Jackson.

On Thursday evening, the House Select Committee investigating the sacking of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 will hold the first of its prime-time, televised public hearings. The committee has done an exhaustive investigation, interviewing a thousand witnesses, looking at tens of thousands of documents.

The committee will face a right-wing media complex—Fox News, Newsmax, the QAnon network and legions of poisonous talk radio hosts—that will no doubt ignore its evidence and savage its conclusions.

The hearings will reveal new information about what was, in fact, a multi-layered effort to overturn the results of a presidential election, driven by the White House and involving Republican legislators, operatives, state officials, and donors. The hearings will ask every American to understand how vulnerable our democracy is, and how close we came to losing it.

The question, of course, is whether it is too late to save our democracy. Donald Trump has persisted in propagating his Big Lie about the election, despite the fact that court after court, many times judges appointed by Trump, his own attorney general and Justice Department, and partisan audits of votes in several states universally found no evidence of fraud that could have come close to making a difference in the election result.

No matter. Trump has persisted, the right-wing media led by Fox News has echoed his claims, and today, two-thirds of Republican voters say Joe Biden is not the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential election and the election was stolen from Trump. Many Republicans join Trump in praising as patriots those who sacked the Capitol.

The Big Lie goes even further than this. Across the country, in the Congress and in the states, Republican officials have systematically blocked efforts to strengthen our electoral system, and instead, in states where they have power, have passed a range of measures to make voting more difficult.

Driven by Trump, they have also supported extremists for what used to be nonpartisan posts in charge of the administration of elections. In some states, they have given the Republican legislatures greater power to overturn the results of the elections. By 2024, Republicans in about 20 states will be primed and eager to ensure that their candidate wins—no matter what the voters say.

In Congress, Republicans have filibustered attempts to reform our electoral laws to make clear how the electoral college works and how it must reflect the votes of the people. They have filibustered against attempts to set federal standards for voting that would make registration and voting far easier. They have even blocked efforts to revive the Voting Rights Act, the keystone of the civil rights movement that was gutted by five right-wing, Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices.

The last time the Voting Rights Act was re-authorized, it received nearly universal bipartisan support in the House and Senate. No more. Now, ensuring the right of Blacks to vote meets with partisan opposition.

There's the rub. Republicans in polls say that they believe that votes are counted honestly in states that vote Republican, in rural and suburban areas where Republicans congregate. They say that fraud takes place in urban areas—areas where Blacks and Hispanics live. Mail-in ballots, which Trump objects to, are fine in Republican areas, but somehow illegitimate in urban areas. When senior citizens used mail-in ballots, there was no problem. Now that more African Americans and Hispanics use them, they are viewed as suspect.

These fears are compounded by the so-called "replacement theory," a favorite of the right-wing media. The replacement theory essentially argues that Black, Hispanic and Asian American votes are tainted because Democrats allegedly are plotting to use immigrants to "replace" white majorities.

America, in this view, must remain a white, Christian, male-dominated country. And if that takes subverting the democracy to ensure that the minority can rule, so be it.

The Jan. 6 congressional committee hearings are, in many ways, a plea for Americans to defend their democracy. This should be as popular as apple pie—but it won't be. The committee will face a right-wing media complex—Fox News, Newsmax, the QAnon network and legions of poisonous talk radio hosts —that will no doubt ignore its evidence and savage its conclusions. More than eight in 10 Republicans who get their news from Fox News believe the election was stolen.

America has experienced brutal battles over its democracy before. The Civil War was fought over whether the United States would remain united and free. The civil rights movement had to overcome entrenched resistance to end apartheid Jim Crow in the South. Now democracy is at stake once more. Will Americans again rally to defend our democracy or will they succumb to a Big Lie grounded in racial animus that will drive our country apart? The Jan. 6 committee hearings are yet another chapter in that ongoing battle.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jesse Jackson.

The U.S. House of Representatives panel investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection—provoked by then-President Donald Trump's "Big Lie" that the 2020 election was stolen from him—will launch a series of six public and nationally televised hearings on Thursday, June 9 at 8:00 pm in Washington, D.C.

The prime-time event will be available on C-SPAN and the YouTube channel of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

While ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox Busines, MSNBC, and NBC have live coverage planned for the hearing, "Fox News will continue to air its regular prime-time programs, led by Tucker Carlson," according to Vanity Fair.

A coalition of advocacy groups is also planning "watch events" across the country, detailed at Jan6watchevents.com. Organizers say that at the events, "we can construct public awareness around the hearings" and "bring together people committed to protecting our democracy to discuss our plan to hold those responsible to account."

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)—one of the panel's nine members—told The Washington Post Monday that "I think you will see a comprehensive introduction and overview of the findings that will be laid out over the course of the month of June, and we are going to tell the story of a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power."

"The committee has found evidence of concerted planning and premeditated activity," said Raskin, who was the manager for Trump's historic second impeachment. "The idea that all of this was just a rowdy demonstration that spontaneously got a little bit out of control is absurd. You don't almost knock over the U.S. government by accident."

"So we're going to lay out all of the evidence we have found," the congressman added, noting that "House Resolution 503 charges us with defining what happened on January 6th, explaining the causes of what happened, and then ultimately laying out recommendations that would allow us to fortify ourselves against coups and insurrections moving forward."

The committee—which includes just two Republicans: Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois—could decide to refer Trump and others to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution.

"Upon receipt of a referral, the Department of Justice may choose to investigate to determine whether or not to prosecute," the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) explains in an online FAQ resource prepared for the hearings.

"The Department of Justice however does not need a criminal referral to bring charges against January 6th participants," CREW notes. "As is always the case, the Justice Department may choose to prosecute based on credible evidence of criminal misconduct that it has uncovered on its own."

On Monday, five leaders of the hate group the Proud Boys were indicted on charges of seditious conspiracy. The move expands the DOJ's allegations related to organized violence challenging the 2020 election results, the Post reported, pointing out that "federal prosecutors previously leveled the historically rare charge of seditious conspiracy for the first time in the January 6 attack against Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the extremist group Oath Keepers, and 10 associates."

CREW president Noah Bookbinder is a co-author of a report released Monday by the Brookings Institution entitled Trump on Trial: A Guide to the January 6 Committee Hearings and the Question of Criminality.

"This publication serves as a guide to the hearings and the evidence the committee and prosecutors may adduce as to whether Trump and his circle committed crimes," the document states. "The report covers key players in the attempt to overturn the election, the known facts regarding their conduct, and the criminal law applicable to their actions."

Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer said that "Trump on Trial is an essential companion to the public hearings—to understanding the full story of what led up to the January 6 insurrection and the criminal laws that may have been broken by Trump and his collaborators and the prosecution that could go forward."

Wertheimer also emphasized the importance of the panel's activities, noting that it "is conducting the most important congressional investigation of presidential wrongdoing since the Senate investigation of the Watergate scandals in the 1970s" and "the evidence the committee produces is likely to play a major role" in the DOJ's decisions regarding Trump and others.

In a Monday column for the Chicago Sun-Times, the Rev. Jesse Jackson similarly stressed the significance of the panel's work, writing:

The hearings will reveal new information about what was, in fact, a multi-layered effort to overturn the results of a presidential election, driven by the White House and involving Republican legislators, operatives, state officials, and donors. The hearings will ask every American to understand how vulnerable our democracy is, and how close we came to losing it.

The question, of course, is whether it is too late to save our democracy. Donald Trump has persisted in propagating his Big Lie about the election, despite the fact that court after court, many times judges appointed by Trump, his own attorney general and Justice Department, and partisan audits of votes in several states universally found no evidence of fraud that could have come close to making a difference in the election result.

The upcoming hearings, he added, "are, in many ways, a plea for Americans to defend their democracy. This should be as popular as apple pie—but it won't be. The committee will face a right-wing media complex—Fox News, Newsmax, the QAnon network, and legions of poisonous talk radio hosts—that will no doubt ignore its evidence and savage its conclusions."

Meanwhile, as Jackson highlighted, "by 2024, Republicans in about 20 states will be primed and eager to ensure that their candidate wins—no matter what the voters say." Additionally, Trump is widely expected to run for president.

The Brookings report, also looking ahead, says that "it is difficult to imagine a more serious offense, in long-term consequences, than plotting to overturn a presidential election. It is also hard to imagine any way to deter Trump other than criminal prosecution. After all, he has survived an unprecedented two impeachments. The political system no longer offers any consequences that he needs to fear."

"The Big Lie and its consequences are still with us, posing the very real risk that Trump and his supporters will be back with more schemes aimed at disrupting and overturning our elections," the document adds. "And, if the evidence—once it is all in—is sufficient to make the case beyond a reasonable doubt, it is difficult to imagine anyone more culpable than a public official who so blatantly betrays the public trust."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

The House committee investigating the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol will hold its first public hearing on Thursday after 10 months of meeting in private. The hearing will be the first of eight and is expected to draw on roughly 1,000 depositions and interviews. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Will Bunch says the success of the hearings will hinge on whether the committee can convince the public that the January 6 attack “wasn’t just a one-off event” but rather “part of an ongoing threat to democracy.” Bunch also speaks about the Pennsylvania Senate race, which he says “is life or death for democracy,” as well as the mass shooting in Philadelphia on Saturday, which left three dead and 11 injured.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

“We’re all racist, if we ask hard questions,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham. Not to the Washington Post (3/24/22), you’re not.

The confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court occasions a look back at some of the media coverage of her hearings. While media reported GOP senators’ grandstanding harassment and aggressive repetition of baseless accusations, their need to always be signaling “balance” led to some mealy-mouthed avoidance tactics, like C-SPAN‘s tweet (3/23/22) describing a “heated exchange between Supreme Court Nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sen. @LindseyGrahamSC on child pornography sentencing”—when anyone watching would tell you only one side was heated.

Or a piece from the Washington Post (3/24/22) that began:

As Ketanji Brown Jackson this week sat through several days of hearings in her bid to join the Supreme Court, Democrats proudly took turns reflecting on the historic example she sets and the need for the judiciary—much like other institutions—to better reflect the diverse public it serves.

At the same time, some Republicans repeatedly suggested that the first Black female high court nominee was soft on crime and questioned whether critical race theory—an academic framework centered on the idea that racism is systemic—influenced her thinking as a judge.

You might think this says: Democrats noted correctly that there are no Black women on the court, while some Republicans showed part of the reason why—by inappropriately linking Black people to crime and to their own weaponized rendering of an intellectual framework.

For the Post, though:

The disparate treatment underscored the extent to which race hovered over the four grueling days of Jackson’s confirmation hearings this week, serving as both a source of ebullience for the judge’s supporters and an avenue for contentious questions that sometimes carried racial undertones.

So it wasn’t a series of racist attacks on a Black woman in an attempt to deny her advancement. It was “race” itself, “hovering”—both over those who want to see an end to decades of discriminatory exclusion, and those who don’t.

When Sen. Marsha Blackburn asked, “Is it your personal hidden agenda to incorporate critical race theory into our legal system?” and Sen. Ted Cruz demanded to know if she thought babies were racist—those would be some of those “contentious questions” with “racial undertones,” leading one to wonder what a racial overtone would look like.

The word “racist” does appear in the piece—in senators’ own descriptions of the 1619 Project and critical race theory, and in reporters Seung Min Kim and Marianna Sotomayor own statement that “Republican senators who would go on to question Jackson most aggressively acknowledged they could be perceived as racist in doing so.”

This sort of coverage may not come off as mean-spirited, but its purposive timidity and awkward “even-handedness” ultimately provide cover for ideas and tactics that should be ruthlessly exposed for what they are. If there ever was a time to talk about “race” “hovering over” things, it’s long past.

The post Racism ‘Hovers’ Over Events Like Jackson Hearings Because It Goes Unnamed appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

The West African nation of Gambia filed a case at the ICJ in November 2019 accusing Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention during the alleged expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya from Rakhine state to neighboring Bangladesh amid a brutal crackdown in 2017.

During the hearings on Feb. 21-28, which include both in-person and virtual participants, representatives of Myanmar and Gambia will present arguments as to whether the ICJ has jurisdiction to examine the claims. The ICJ is the judicial arm of the United Nations.

The case is separate from an investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as to whether two waves of violence in Rakhine that led to the forced deportation of more than 740,000 Rohingya into Bangladesh represented a crime against humanity. The ICC can prosecute individuals, while the ICJ works as an arbiter in disputes among nations.

Myanmar’s military seized power from the democratically elected government in a Feb. 1, 2021, coup that ushered in a period of violence. Security forces have killed more than 1,560 people across the country.

Myanmar’s National Unity Government (NUG), a government in exile formed by elected leaders, previously refused to accept the authority of the ICJ to decide if the 2016-17 scorched-earth campaign constituted genocide against Rohingya Muslims.

But the NUG recently changed its stance and urged The Hague court not to recognize the ruling military junta as the country’s representative.

Rohingya living in refugee camps in southeastern Bangladesh said they are hopeful that the ICJ can bring justice for the Myanmar military’s rights violations against the ethnic minority group.

Mohammad Nur, former general secretary of the Kutupalong Camp-2 East refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar,  noted that the former government led by Aung San Suu Kyi supported the military’s action in Rakhine, but now has reversed course.

“So, this changed scenario gives us hope,” he told BenarNews, an RFA-affiliated online news service.

The Rohingya refugees are ineligible to become citizens in Myanmar under current policy. But last June the NUG said that it plans to amend the country’s constitution to give citizenship to Rohingya, 300,000 of who still live in Rakhine state.

Nur said they want to return to their home country because the refugee camps where they now live are squalid and overcrowded and offer limited educational and employment opportunities.

“If the court decision comes out in our favor, the military government will come under international pressure and, hopefully, agree to give us citizenship,” he said. 

Jafar Alam, a Rohingya physician at the Kutupalong camp, told BenarNews that the NUG’s reversed position supporting the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the genocide case will bode well for the refugees.

“We, all the Rohingya people, have been waiting eagerly to hear a decision in favor of us,” he said. “If the ICJ decision comes out in our favor, then there will be no problem for us to go back to Myanmar.”

During a videoconference on the ICJ hearing hosted by Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Feb. 17, Wai Wai Nu, a Rohingya activist and director of the Women’s Peace Network, said that the case “opens the door for accountability and justice for Rohingyas and many other communities” in Myanmar.

“It's helped [people] to realize the enormity of the crimes against the ethnic communities and the people of Myanmar,” she said.

“It also raises the debate of justice and accountability domestically, not just internationally, which is very important for our country, Myanmar, because the questions of justice and accountability have always been under-discussed or dismissed,” she said.

Phil Robertson, HRW’s deputy Asia director, said his group is trying to get more nations to support the ICJ case.

“Hopefully, we’re getting closer and closer to our goal of breaking the cycle of impunity that the Tatmadaw [Myanmar military] has sustained throughout the course of modern Myanmar, causing untold suffering against the Burmese people.”

Reported by RFA’s Myanmar Service and Kamran Reza Chowdhury for BenarNews. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Radio Free Asia.