Only just beginning.

June 13, 2022

[Audio version here]

          A group of Senators announced a deal on a “gun safety” bill that would (a) incentivize states to enact “red flag” laws; (b) provide for expanded background checks on buyers under 21; (c) extend to dating partners a prohibition on gun ownership for domestic abusers; and (d) provide funding to schools to enhance mental health services and school safety. The proposals have the backing of ten Democrats and ten Republicans. In a rational world, that should be enough to pass the legislation in the US Senate. Whether the ten Republicans will support the final version of the deal will be determined only if and when the bill is brought to the Senate floor for a vote.

          Each of the proposed provisions is sensible and deserves our support. The “abusive dating partner” prohibition on gun possession is long overdue and represents a significant achievement standing alone. (That provision may not survive on the Senate floor.) Enhancing background checks on purchasers between 18 and 21 to examine juvenile justice records is also a step in the right direction. Major gun safety groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action praised the deal in effusive and unqualified terms. See, e.g., Press Release, Everytown and Moms Demand Action Applaud Announcement of Major Federal Bipartisan Gun Safety Deal. Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, said

We’re breaking the logjam in Congress and proving that gun safety isn’t just good policy – it’s good politics. Our grassroots army has been demanding action from the Senate for nearly a decade and now we’ll fight like hell to get this historic deal over the finish line.

          Americans should be proud that their activism helped achieve a historic result that will undoubtedly save lives. Let’s take a moment to savor that victory.

          Okay, the moment of savoring is over. The truth is that Democrats and gun safety groups have rewarded Republicans for their intransigence. None of the measures limit, prohibit, or regulate guns or ammunition—a fact that Senator Cornyn highlighted when announcing the deal. (Cornyn tweeted, “I worked closely with my colleagues to find an agreement to protect our communities from violence while also protecting law-abiding Texans’ right to bear arms.”)

          Republicans have engineered a result that does the bare minimum to provide political cover for the GOP in the midterm elections. None of the Republican Senators participating in the bipartisan negotiations is up for re-election in 2022. Indeed, four of the Republican Senators are retiring in 2022 (Portman, Blunt, Burr, Toomey), and five GOP Senators will not stand for re-election until 2026. (Romney is the only GOP Senator who must stand for election in 2024).

          The “deal” presents a moral and political dilemma. Should we accept a woefully inadequate package, or should we reject meager provisions of the bill and trust that the issue of gun control can increase Democratic margins of control in 2022? The political establishment has opted to accept the inadequate measures in the deal. President Biden said he would sign the bill if presented to him while acknowledging it does not go far enough. The Hill, Biden says he will sign Senate’s bipartisan gun proposal.

          So, accepting that this is the “take-it-or-leave-it” deal that may make it to the Senate floor, here is the most important point: We cannot—we must not—allow anyone to pretend that this “deal” is a meaningful reform package that excuses further effort to limit assault rifles and related military ammunition and accessories.

          Over the weekend, hundreds of thousands of Americans marched to end gun violence. Their dedication and commitment helped get us to this point. But our work is far from finished. Indeed, it is only just beginning. If you want to get a sense of how readers of this newsletter participated in March for Our Lives on Saturday, check out the Comments section in the newsletter titled March for Our Lives. The comments from readers buoyed my hope that we will eventually achieve meaningful change; it may do the same for you. Check it out!

January 6th Committee Hearings continue.

          Don’t miss the second public presentation by the January 6th Committee, scheduled for Monday, June 13th at 10:00 AM Eastern, 7:00 AM Pacific. The second hearing will focus on The Big Lie, and will feature former Trump campaign chairman William Stepien and former Fox News analyst Chris Stirewalt.

          The initial hearing (last Thursday) laid out damning evidence that Trump committed seditious conspiracy, illegally attempted to interfere in Georgia’s election for president, and conspired to defraud the United States. Rep. Adam Schiff appeared on Sunday talk shows and essentially begged for Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate those potential crimes. See AP News, Jan. 6 panelists: Enough evidence uncovered to indict Trump. (“[T]here are certain actions, parts of these different lines of effort to overturn the election that I don’t see evidence the Justice Department is investigating.”)

          Political commentators on the right and left suggest that indicting Trump would plunge America into dangerous waters of tit-for-tat prosecution of former presidents. Per the AP story cited in the preceding paragraph,

          Legal experts have said a Justice Department prosecution of Trump over the riot could set an uneasy precedent in which an administration of one party could more routinely go after the former president of another.

          And former presidential advisor Steve Bannon threatened Merrick Garland with impeachment if he indicts Trump and Republicans take control of the House in 2022. Others (including many readers of this newsletter) worry that if Garland indicts Trump, it will be impossible to find an impartial jury to convict him.

          What should we make of these reservations about indicting Trump?

          We should not be dissuaded from doing the right thing by threats of reprisal by political opponents. Nor should we be dissuaded from indicting Trump because it will be traumatic for the nation. The only thing worse for the nation than indicting Trump is not indicting Trump. If Garland declines to indict Trump, it will give Trump a “free pass” to attempt another insurrection in 2024.

          And what if Trump escapes conviction because a single juror is a Trump loyalist who would never convict Trump? Similar risks are inherent in every prosecution. If worrying about recalcitrant jurors is sufficient reason not to prosecute a culpable defendant, the DOJ would never indict anyone. Even an unsuccessful prosecution of Trump would continue the focus on his misdeeds into 2024—possibly dissuading anyone inclined to assist Trump in a second attempted coup.

          I am not dismissing the challenges or disruptions that would attend an indictment of Trump. But think back to January 6, 2021 as you watched the assault on the Capitol and ask yourself if can in good conscience decline to do everything in our power to prevent a repeat. We must rise to the defense of the Constitution, even if that requires sacrifice, discomfort, and extraordinary courage on our part.

The Supreme Court.

          There are only three weeks remaining in the Supreme Court’s current term. The chances are high that the Court will release opinions this week relating to abortion (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health) and concealed carry permits (NY Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen). In any event, the opinions must be released by June 30th (unless the Court dodges responsibility by doing something extraordinary).

          As the Court’s current term lurches towards an ignominious end, the scandals besetting the Court grow. Late last week, we learned that Ginni Thomas, spouse of Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote to twenty-nine Arizona state legislators urging them to override the choice of Arizona voters of Joe Biden as the next president. See WaPo,  Ginni Thomas pressed 29 Arizona lawmakers to help overturn Trump’s defeat, emails show.

          During the current term, Justice Thomas was the lone dissenting vote to oppose efforts by the January 6th Committee to obtain texts and emails from Mark Meadows. Those texts and emails contained dozens of communications from Ginni Thomas indicating her involvement in the attempted coup. The flagrant failure of Justice Thomas to disqualify himself should have provoked an internal investigation by Chief Justice Roberts. Instead, the feckless Roberts remained silent in the face of growing public outrage over corruption on the Court.

The environment.

          The challenge in getting people to focus on environmental issues is that they are longer-term phenomena that require a sustained and thoughtful approach to complicated issues. For those interested in environmental policies, I recommend an article sent by a reader. See Nautilus, How Much Is the Ocean Worth? The article’s thesis is that when we extract value from nature, we ignore the hidden costs and focus only on the alleged “profit” of the extraction.

          For example, forests sequester millions of tons of carbon each year. If a timber company cuts down a large swath of forest, it never recognizes the cost of the lost carbon sequestration capability of the missing trees. The same concepts apply to oceans, grasslands, fisheries, mining, drilling, etc. I found the article helpful in re-framing environmental issues into actionable steps to mitigate the “hidden costs” of extractive industries. Check it out!

Concluding Thoughts.

          The first January 6th hearing was disquieting on many levels, not the least of which was the depiction of a sitting president agreeing that his vice president should be hanged by a violent mob. The depiction of a depraved president was so disturbing that two of Rupert Murdoch’s mouthpieces—the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post—published editorials that harshly criticized Trump based on the evidence presented by the January 6th committee. See Mediate, ‘Trump Bears Responsibility For The Mayhem’: Murdoch Papers Hit Trump with Pair of Brutal Op-eds on January 6th Hearing.

          Maureen O’Dowd’s op-ed in the NYTimes accurately portrays the horror of Trump that emerged from the hearings. See NYTimes, Donald Trump, American Monster. She also captures the emotional impact of the hearing:

          We listened Thursday night to the frightful catalogue of Trump’s deeds. They are so beyond the pale, so hard to fathom, that in some ways, it’s all still sinking in.

          “It’s all still sinking in.” Like the terrorist attacks on 9/11, it is difficult to comprehend and retain the grotesqueness of Trump’s betrayal of the Constitution. Watching the hearings is part of the ongoing process of absorbing and understanding the shock to the system inflicted by January 6th. The hearings can be hard to watch. But like the Watergate Hearings, they are history in the making. Each of us has a duty to be a witness to what happened on January 6th so that liars and traitors cannot revise history to their perverse ends.

          If you can’t watch everything, or can’t watch the hearings live, make it a point to read reliable coverage of what happens during the hearings. You may be asked at some point in the future by a grandchild, “What really happened on January 6th?” Let’s be ready to answer that question truthfully and completely. We owe it to future generations, to ourselves, and the Constitution.

          Talk to you tomorrow!