Happy Presidents’ Day. Officially designated as George Washington’s birthday, it’s the day we celebrate American presidents. Instead of just being another Monday off, this would be a good year to reflect on the qualities we value in our leaders. They do not include appointing cabinet secretaries whose utter lack of competence leads to shutting down U.S. airspace for no reason.
Or this, in New Jersey.
Last month, when ICE surged in Maine, I was able to participate in some of the Know Your Rights training offered by the ACLU. During that session, a school bus driver asked for detailed instructions for checking search warrants for lawfulness and understanding his ability to protect students. It was heart-wrenching. The current president, whose time in office I won’t be celebrating tomorrow, the one who promised to remove what he called “the worst of the worst” from American streets, has instead been terrorizing school kids and using law enforcement resources to arrest hardworking parents with terminally ill kids, like Ruben Torres Maldonado.
Trump leads an administration that has killed two American citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights. It has harmed countless other people, while arresting grandmothers, five-year-olds, and many whose presence in this country, though undocumented, largely benefits America. What would the Founding Fathers make of the president who is leading the country as we approach our 250th anniversary? Undoubtedly, they would see nothing in him to celebrate. Will DOJ Try to Indict a Bad Case Again After Failing? Last Tuesday, a grand jury in the District of Columbia declined to indict six members of Congress who made a video advising members of the military they didn’t have to, and shouldn’t follow, illegal orders. Although it happens very rarely, proposed indictments do fail because not enough grand jurors vote in their favor. Here, multiple news outlets reported that not a single grand juror voted for the indictment. That’s extraordinary. It’s easy to understand why—six lawmakers doing their jobs isn’t exactly a federal crime. Prosecutors suggested that they violated a law that prohibits interference with the loyalty, morale, or discipline of the armed forces. The grand jury saw straight through that.
There weren’t any career federal prosecutors involved in the attempt, just U.S. Attorney and former Fox host Jeannie Pirro and two of her “special counsels,” Carlton Davis and Steven Vandervelden. They work in Pirro’s front office, one handling policy and legislative affairs and the other as director of external affairs. They are not the kind of folks you’d expect to see handling the indictment of six members of Congress. The ABA Journal explained that Vandervelden, who “operates a photography studio and has no federal prosecution experience, was hired by Pirro to help secure indictments, along with another lawyer. Vandervelden operates a dance photography studio but had previously worked with Pirro as a prosecutor in Westchester County, New York.” But when the president of the United States is outraged by lawmakers’ exercise of their First Amendment rights, this Justice Department jumps up to salute. The question, as we enter the week ahead, is whether they will try to indict again after this miserable, failed attempt. Elissa Slotkin, the Michigan Senator who was one of DOJ’s targets, is represented by my podcast cohost Preet Bharara. He wrote to AG Pam Bondi and Pirro that, in the wake of the grand jury’s decision, “continuing to pursue this matter would violate clear ethical duties and Justice Department policy.” As the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York for eight years during the Obama administration, he’s in a position to know. “Members of the military have a duty not to follow unlawful orders, and reminding them of that duty is no crime. The only responsible course is to respect the grand jury’s decision and immediately close the investigation of Senator Slotkin.” Preet’s letter asked DOJ to confirm, by the close of business last Friday, that the investigation, at least as to his client, had been closed. We’ll see if Pirro’s office tries to go back to the grand jury this week. The Supreme Court May Announce One or More Decisions Friday So far, the Supreme Court hasn’t announced decisions in major cases this term. That could change this week, because the Court has announced it will issue decisions this Friday, and twice the following week. It could be tariffs. It could be a lot of things. But one major case to look for is Louisiana v. Callais. That’s the Louisiana redistricting case, where white voters challenged maps that give Black voters in the state a shot at proportional representation. The maps create a second Congressional district where Black voters have the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice. Louisiana, like many other heavy gerrymandered states, has historically engaged in “packing and cracking”—“packing” as many Black voters as possible into one of a state’s districts where they can elect only one representative, while “cracking” the remaining Black voters apart and spreading them among the remaining districts in concentrations too low to have even a theoretical shot at it. The challenged Louisiana map created two Black opportunity districts. If the Court rules in favor of the white majority, which argues race-based considerations are illegal, the potential exists to radically alter existing maps across the country, leading to solid Republican majorities in the House for a generation. A decision that does that would wipe away the country’s history of voter suppression as though it never happened, and wasn’t still happening, despite what we know to be the case. With primaries coming up fast in May, it would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s “Purcell Principle,” which frowns upon making changes too close to an election, for an adverse decision in Callais to go into effect this year. Candidates had to qualify by last Friday to run in Louisiana’s primaries for the House and the Senate. But announcing the decision now would put things in motion for 2028. And the ruling will have nationwide, not just statewide, impact. Next in Epstein There are still roughly three million documents DOJ hasn’t disclosed. DOJ sent Congress its long overdue 15-day report with a list of political types whose names had been redacted—it includes non-starters like Chelsea Clinton and Dan Goldman, Elvis and Janis Joplin, who died in 1970 when Epstein was 17—in other words, people who are mentioned in documents but had no involvement with Epstein’s crimes. But we still don’t know what names are redacted in key documents regarding Epstein and his friends’ crimes. DOJ is playing a drawn out waiting game to see if it can pacify the public and make it all go away. California Representative Ro Khanna is calling Epstein’s network of wealthy, powerful people “the Epstein class.” That’s exactly what they are. People who have escaped accountability for far too long. With Congress finding its voice more and more frequently, this week could prove pivotal if it is willing to require the administration to comply with the Transparency Act, instead of just continuing to pay lip service to it. The survivors deserve that much. We can help. That’s the work our community can do. Make sure you let your Senators and Representatives, no matter what party they belong to, know how you feel about this ongoing travesty of justice. We’re in this together, Joyce You're currently a free subscriber to Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Sunday, February 15, 2026
The Week Ahead
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
February 15, 2026
The Trump administration’s white nationalist project was on full display this weekend at the 62nd Munich Security Conference that took place...
-
Four Ohio cities ranked in the nation's top 100 best cities for single people, according to a WalletHub survey that considered fact...
-
Rising Electricity Prices And The Fight For A Better Energy Future - My Conversation With Jay InsleeWatch now (21 mins) | Afternoon everyone. ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
No comments:
Post a Comment