SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 18 2024, 11:42am EDT
Contact:
Constitutional Lawyers Urge Clark County, Ohio Prosecutor To Pursue Criminal Charges Against Donald Trump and JD Vance
Attorneys with Free Speech For People and Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym issued a joint letter today to Daniel Driscoll, the Clark County prosecutor, in support of the Haitian Bridge Alliance’s recently-filed complaint seeking criminal charges against Donald Trump and JD Vance for dangerous, inflammatory, and repeated lies about the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio.
On September 24, the Haitian Bridge Alliance filed a criminal complaint in municipal court against Trump and Vance for inducing panic, making false alarms, and disrupting public services based on their repeated false statements about criminal acts allegedly committed by Springfield, Ohio’s Haitian community. They allege that, as a result of these false and dangerous claims, Springfield has experienced at least 33 bomb threats; evacuation and closures of schools, colleges, and public buildings; deployment of state troopers to Springfield; and threats to individuals, business owners, and elected officials.
The Clark County Municipal Court directed Discoll to investigate and determine whether or not to prosecute Trump and Vance. The letter demonstrates that the First Amendment does not protect Trump and Vance from criminal liability for knowingly repeating false and dangerous claims about the Haitian community and that the statements predictably threatened their safety and jeopardized public security.
The letter reads: “Trump and Vance’s continuous use of their national platform to spread dangerous falsehoods that foreseeably cause widespread civic disruption against already marginalized communities falls squarely within the criminal charges your office has been asked to evaluate. The Haitian Bridge Alliance asks only that this office apply the pertinent criminal statutes to Trump and Vance as they have been applied to other defendants, and that both be held to the same standards as the other individuals who have been appropriately and successfully prosecuted under the criminal charges sought here. We hope that this office agrees that the law should be applied equally to all people. Trump and Vance’s positions of authority do not immunize them from the consequences that would fall—and have fallen—upon anyone else. We strongly support the Haitian Bridge Alliance and Jozef’s petition, believe that the requested criminal charges are supported by probable cause, and are justified by Trump and Vance’s severe criminal misconduct.”
Read the full letter here.
Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan non-profit organization founded on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that works to defend our democracy and our Constitution.
LATEST NEWS
Emoluments Probe Concludes Trump Used DC Hotel to Enrich Himself, Fleece Taxpayers While President
"Far from expressing contrition for cashing in on the presidency, Donald Trump has made explicit his intent to expand his commodification of federal office if re-elected."
Oct 18, 2024
Democrats on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Friday published a staff report detailing how, while in office, former U.S. President Donald Trump—the 2024 Republican nominee—used his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. to enrich himself with hundreds of illegal or questionable payments from federal and state officials, job-seekers, and presidential pardon recipients.
The report—titled Room Rates May Vary: How Donald Trump Violated the Constitution by Fleecing Taxpayers With Unlawful and Exorbitant Hotel Charges—was released by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who in 2021 managed Trump's historic second impeachment for inciting the January 6 Capitol insurrection.
"Trump has used the presidency—and his yearslong pursuit of it—as the world's greatest get-rich-quick scheme."
Offering "a glimpse into President Trump's domestic emoluments rackets," the publication accuses the former president of violating the Constitution's Domestic Emoluments Clause "as he used the Secret Service as his personal ATM and repeatedly took payments that raise the specter of pay-to-play corruption from individuals who sought and, in many cases obtained, favors from the commander-in-chief."
"From the time he became a candidate and launched his campaign as ' the greatest infomercial in political history,' Donald Trump has used the presidency—and his yearslong pursuit of it—as the world's greatest get-rich-quick scheme," the report states.
"Earlier this year, the Democratic staff of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability released a staff report documenting the nearly $8 million former President Trump received through just four of his businesses and over just parts of a two-year period from at least 20 foreign governments that sought—and in many cases received—favors from the Trump administration," the report notes.
"This figure is clearly just a fraction of the total amount of unconstitutional foreign emoluments President Trump collected while in office—a total that still needs to be fully accounted for," the paper contends.
As Common Dreamsreported in January, documents from Trump's former accounting firm reviewed by the committee revealed that businesses owned by the former president received payments from at least 20 foreign governments during his White House term, including over $5.5 million from China, $615,422 from Saudi Arabia, $465,744 from Qatar, and $303,372 from Kuwait.
The new report continues:
This follow-up report is based on a single set of records: guest logs for a single Trump property, Donald Trump's Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., covering just an 11-month period between September 2017 and August 2018 (excluding July 2018). Thus, the results would presumably represent less than one-quarter of Trump's ill-gotten gains from a single hotel over the course of his four-year term. While this is an exceedingly small window into the opaque web of more than 500 corporations, limited liability companies, and trusts that Donald Trump carried with him into the presidency, it is enough to reveal hundreds of unconstitutional and ethically suspect payments he accepted while in office from domestic sources—including a federal agency, numerous federal and state officials, and individuals who sought, and frequently obtained, federal offices as well as presidential pardons from him.
"The Constitution makes clear: Beyond a salary, the president may not receive any additional payments from federal or state governments," Raskin said in a statement. "This is a non-waivable prohibition against exploiting the office to convert and pocket public funds."
"While we still do not know the full extent of the unconstitutional payments Trump pocketed while fleecing American taxpayers, one thing is certain: We must put legal barriers in place now to prevent the kind of ripoff corruption our Founding Fathers so strongly opposed," Raskin added. "Given the need to enforce the U.S. Constitution against both foreign and domestic emoluments corruption, in the coming days, I will work with my Democratic colleagues on a legislative fix and hope that my Republican colleagues will join us in this effort."
The report notes that "Trump was very clear that he did not believe that the Constitution's prohibitions on either foreign or domestic emoluments applied to him. For example, in 2019, when public outrage forced him to reverse his plan to hold the following year's G7 summit at his 'foundering Doral resort,' he publicly denigrated what he called the 'phony Emoluments Clause.'"
"And far from expressing contrition for cashing in on the presidency, Donald Trump has made explicit his intent to expand his commodification of federal office if re-elected—including by gutting the federal civil service and replacing professional, expert, nonpolitical federal employees with a cadre of yes-men, sycophants, and loyalists," the paper adds.
Raskin said that "Trump
has made clear that he will not only refuse to divest from his businesses in a possible future presidency, but he will seek to multiply opportunities to commodify the Oval Office for his personal enrichment by turning thousands of civil service jobs into patronage positions—all with the attendant payoff possibilities from supplicant job-seekers and the prospective blessing of his hand-picked Supreme Court justices."
Keep ReadingShow Less
73% of Young US Voters Eager to Support Candidates With Bold Climate Agenda
Over three-quarters in a new survey endorsed the idea that the "future is frightening" and 62.9% agreed that "humanity is doomed."
Oct 18, 2024
More than half of young people in the U.S. are "very or extremely worried" about the climate crisis and an even larger percentage are motivated to do something about it, including at the ballot box.
The data came from a poll published on Thursday in The Lancet Planetary Health, which found that concerns about the climate crisis were impacting young people's decisions about their personal and public lives, with 52.3% saying they were "hesitant to have children" and 72.8% planning to vote for candidates who back ambitious climate policies.
"Climate change is causing widespread distress among U.S. youth and affecting their beliefs and plans for the future," the study authors concluded. "These effects may intensify, across the political spectrum, as exposure to climate-related severe weather events increases."
"There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%."
The study was based on an online survey conducted between July 20 and November 7 of 2023. In what authors believe to be the largest of its kind to date, the survey considered 15,793 answers from young people aged 16 to 25 in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
The vast majority of respondents, 85%, were at least moderately worried about climate change, while 57.9% were very worried. Nearly two-thirds reported feeling anxious, powerless, afraid, sad, and angry about the climate crisis, while 51.2% felt despair. A smaller but significant number said that climate change was impacting their mental health and that worries about climate change were having a negative impact on their daily lives, at 42.8% and 38.3% respectively. Over three-quarters endorsed the statement, "The future is frightening," and 62.9% agreed that "humanity is doomed."
Many respondents anticipated the crisis to alter the trajectory of their lives, with 69.4% expecting it to impact where they would live, 66% expecting it to menace their health, 63.5% saying it would impact their future plans overall, and 65.5% saying it would outright make their lives worse.
However, many planned to take proactive steps to address climate change. In addition to voting, 68.2% said they would decrease their or their family's contribution to climate change, 67.4% said they would work for more sustainable employers, and 61.4% said they would join or back climate advocacy groups.
The climate crisis also shaped the respondents' thoughts and opinions, with 89.4% blaming corporations and industry for the emergency, 86% blaming the U.S. government, and 85.5% blaming other wealthy nations. Similar percentages put the onus on corporations, the U.S., and other wealthy governments to fix the problem. A full 71.9% of respondents agreed with the statement, "I don't want to participate in a social and economic system that harms the planet."
The survey results were consisted with past polls of young people. An earlier global poll, also published in The Lancet, found that 75% of U.S. respondents were moderately worried about the climate crisis and 46% were very worried. However, one thing that stood out in the most recent survey was how consistent the results were across state and party affiliation.
"One of the most striking findings of the survey was that this was across the political spectrum," lead author Eric Lewandowski, a clinical psychologist and associate professor at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine, toldThe Guardian. "There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%."
In past surveys on U.S. climate attitudes, whether someone is a Republican, Democrat, or Independent has had a strong influence on how concerned they are about climate and whether or not they think the government should act on it.
However, the study authors noted, "Compared with these past reports, greater proportions of Republicans in this survey endorsed negative emotions and thoughts about climate change and the response of the U.S. government, and plans to vote for political candidates who support aggressive climate policies."
For example, while 92.6% and 86.5% of Democrats and Independents respectively said they were at least moderately worried about climate change, 73.5% of Republicans also said they were. While 83% of Democrats and 76.1% of Independents wanted the U.S. government to carry out a "plan to prevent the worst impacts of climate change," 69.1% of Republicans also did. And 62.3% of Republicans surveyed said they would vote based on a candidate's climate ambition, compared with 85.5% of Democrats and 74.5% of Independents.
Another factor that influenced respondent's climate feelings was whether or not they had experienced an extreme weather event, and this effect was not impacted by party affiliation.
"Despite baseline differences by political party, as respondents across the political spectrum perceived the impact of a greater array of severe weather events in their area, their distress related to climate change and their desire and plans for action increased," the study authors wrote.
Coming weeks after the devastation of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, the survey indicates that young people's mental health and well-being will consider to suffer as the climate crisis intensifies. This can be offset somewhat by giving these young people a chance to discuss and act on climate in their communities, schools, workplaces, and government. However, as with all climate impacts, the distress of young Americans has one overarching solution: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels to reduce emissions.
"These findings reinforce a theme identified in other research that climate change-related distress will continue to increase while climate change remains insufficiently addressed," the study authors concluded. "Accordingly, the response to address this distress must be for industries, governments, and policymakers to act at the necessary scale."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Terrifying': Leak Shows Industry Plot to Worsen Methane Emissions—If Trump Wins
"They want to take climate out of the policy process entirely."
Oct 18, 2024
A key oil and gas industry group has devised a plan to dismantle Biden-era climate regulations, including on methane emissions, according to an investigation published Friday in The Washington Post.
The American Exploration and Production Council, a trade group of 30 oil and gas producers, aims to reverse a series of regulations the Biden administration has made, including the institution of a methane fee, the Post reported, based on AXPC documents that were leaked to Fieldnotes, a climate research group.
AXPC represents Big Oil companies including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, whose executives Republican nominee Donald Trump has aggressively sought out for contributions in his bid to return to the White House, even making a quid pro quo offer—deregulation in return for $1 billion in campaign cash—during a gathering at Mar-a-Lago in April.
David Doniger, senior adviser to the NRDC Action Fund, which is affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Post that Trump had "promised to grant their wishes" and the leaked documents, which Doniger reviewed at the paper's request, revealed their "wish list."
Paasha Mahdavi, director of the Energy Governance and Political Economy Lab at University of California at Santa Barbara, noted the comprehensiveness of AXPC's plans, which he also reviewed.
"They want to take climate out of the policy process entirely," Mahdavi told the Post. "They want government to stop regulating climate issues and stop thinking about climate risks."
Mahdavi said the AXPC documents showed that member companies were acting out of step with their own public climate pledges.
"They talk a lot about climate ambitions while doing something different inside their companies," he said. "If you are aligned with the Paris agreement, you cannot be part of a trade association trying to roll back these emissions regulations. Those two things are inconsistent."
Elizabeth Kolbert, an environmental writer at The New Yorker, said the plans were not surprising but were "still terrifying."
The oil and gas industry's plan for a Trump presidency involves pouring more methane into the atmosphere. Unsurprisingly, but still terrifying. https://t.co/RsVjiMefZH
— Elizabeth Kolbert (@ElizKolbert) October 18, 2024
Aspects of the AXPC plans had already been released publicly, including its goals to increase the production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The leaked documents included a confidential survey of member companies showing that nine out of the 19 companies that responded had increased methane flaring between 2021 and 2023. Natural gas flaring is a longstanding but highly polluting industry disposal method. The survey also showed that the total amount of flaring across the companies increased by 20% from 2022 to 2023.
Methane is a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide, though not as long lasting in its effects. Methane emissions are responsible for about 20-30% of climate warming since the 1700s, scientists estimate—second only to carbon dioxide. Fossil fuels are a major source of those methane emissions, along with modern agricultural practices and other causes.
In March, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its methane rule, which is projected to reduce emissions of the gas by up to 80% over 14 years. A group of Republican-led states and fossil fuel interests have challenged the rule in federal court. The case that's ongoing, though the plaintiffs' bid for an emergency injunction on the rule from the U.S. Supreme Court failed, so the regulation remains in effect.
The documents also show a number of other orders and regulations in the industry's crosshairs. One is a sweeping executive order issued in the first week of the Biden administration to establish a "whole-of-government" approach to tackling the climate crisis; it includes goals to limit drilling on federal land and decarbonize the grid. AXPC also seeks to undo an executive order that requires companies to disclose climate-related financial risks.
Other items in the AXPC roadmap include lifting the Biden administration's pause on LNG exports and undoing a rule requiring the climate to be taken into account in major infrastructure projects. The group also wants to see an executive order that promotes fossil fuel production.
AXPC spokesperson Mark Bednar, who previously worked for then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, told the Post that "our board documents make clear that our priorities are the same regardless of who is in the White House."
Yet the plan, which runs in contradiction to Democratic Party aims, will only be actionable if Trump returns to power.
Trump has phoned oil and gas executives regularly in recent months "to hear their wishes and raise campaign cash," the Post reported. As a group, AXPC hasn't contributed to the Trump campaign, but leaders of its member companies are Trump donors and fundraisers.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), which released a major report this week showing that the world's nations were not on track to achieve crucial climate goals, has documented the dangerous rise in global methane emissions—making the agency a target of the fossil fuel industry.
At a fundraiser this summer, fossil fuel executives told Trump he should push for Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, to be replaced, according to the Post, citing an anonymous attendee.
ExxonMobil distanced itself from the leaked documents, telling the Post that it doesn't agree with all AXPC positions and that it has sharply reduced its methane emissions and supports the methane fee.
ConocoPhillips didn't reply to a request for comment by the Post but has said in filings that it supports the AXPC's position on methane.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular