Monthly Archives: August 2022

Cary Heinz served for thirty-four years as a public school educator until June of 2021, and now writes about history, politics and sports.

The Nixons celebrate with the Fords after Rep. Gerald Ford's appointment to replace Spiro Agnew as Vice President, 1973

Throughout much of our nations history, vice-presidents have been neither seen or heard. In fact, very often there hasnt even been a vice president at all. On December 19, 1974, Nelson Rockefeller was sworn in as the forty-first vice president of the United States. Since that moment, we have had a vice-president. What is surprising, is that for over thirty-eight years of our countrys existence, we did not have a vice president, which represents about twenty percent of our countrys history. Before, the passage of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967, there was not a constitutional mechanism for a replacement. In the 19th century, the office was vacant an astonishing twenty-six percent of the time.

Eight presidents have died in office, four by assassins bullets. Each time this happened, the vice president ascended to the White House, leaving the vice-presidency unoccupied. What is often overlooked is that seven vice presidents have also passed, leaving the office without a replacement for the remainder of that term. Curiously, these seven died within a period of just over one hundred years. George Clinton died April 20, 1812, and on October 30, 1912 James Sherman died, just six days before the election. Six times in history, we have had no VP for three and a half years, almost seventy five percent of the presidential term.

The Constitution of the United States, warts and all, is a remarkable and enduring document. It has withstood the test of time, and is malleable enough to accommodate airplanes and automobiles, cameras and computers, and telegraphs, text messages, and trains. The vice-presidency almost seemed like an afterthought when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia in the tepid summer of 1787. The first time that it was discussed was after September 4, in the last two weeks of the convention. The deliberations were centered more around the mechanics of presidential elections than succession. Several prominent members of the delegation, ironically including future vice-president Elbridge Gerry, said they were against having any vice-president. Initially, the runner-up became the vice-president. The system worked out fine, until the development of political parties, which did not exist in 1787.

A number of adjustments would follow, the first being the Twelfth Amendment. This cleaned up a controversy after the 1800 election when Aaron Burr, who was intended to be Thomas Jeffersons vice president, entertained accepting the presidency himself if offered.

Three times has the next person in line after the vice presidency changed. The Presidential Succession Act of 1792 placed the President Pro Tempore of the Senate behind the VP if necessary. Surely you remember that office from your high school civics final exam (its currently held by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont). One would be a rather serious scholar of American History to know the names of Willie Person Mangum, Lafayette Sabine Foster, John Hay, and/or John McCormack, all of whom were a heartbeat from the presidency.

John Tyler became the first accidental president in April of 1841 when William Henry Harrison became the first president to die in office. There was some controversy if Tyler truly became president, or was acting, but Tyler insisted he was the chief executive and defiantly returned any letter unopened if it addressed him as anything other than "President of the United States." Tyler set a precedent that the others would follow. On February 28, 1844, a constitutional challenge nearly occurred. Tyler was aboard the USS Princeton (but fortunately below deck, courting the woman, thirty-three years his junior) when a naval gun exploded on deck, killing six. Had Tyler perished, Senator Mangum would have become the eleventh president of the United States.

Andrew Johnson became president in 1865 after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. If Booth co-conspirator George Atzerodt hadnt drank away his courage at the hotel bar where he and Johnson stayed and carried out his assignment to murder Johnson, Lafayette Sabine Foster would have been our eighteenth president. Johnson, the first president to be impeached, was able to keep his job by just one vote in his 1868 senate trial. Had one vote switched, Benjamin Wade would have become acting president.

Eighteen years later, Congress rewrote the earlier law and passed the Presidential Succession Act of 1886. This made the Secretary of State third in line, because when President James Garfield died in 1881, and Vice President Thomas Hendricks died in 1885, there was neither a president pro tempore or speaker of the house. One problem is that Congress was rarely actually in session back then. In 1885, it was technically there just seventy-six days. President Chester Arthur, Garfields successor (1881-1885) was diagnosed with Brights disease early in his presidency, which would take his life just twenty months after he left office. These men were not immortal, particularly with 19th century medicine.

Theodore Roosevelt became the youngest chief executive in September of 1901 when William McKinley succumbed to a gunshot wound inflicted eight days earlier. A bit less than a year later, Roosevelt was involved in a carriage/trolley collision in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. In that mishap, William Big Bill Craig became the first Secret Service member killed in the line of duty. The hyperactive president ignored his injuries, and a few weeks later his leg became infected while campaigning in Indiana, requiring surgery. Newspapers called the medical intervention a brush with death. Had TR died of the pre-penicillin infection, Secretary of State John Hay would have become the twenty-seventh president. Hay was not only better known than Mangum, Foster, and Wade, but also more qualified, serving as one of Lincolns private secretaries as well as other positions before the State Department.

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 altered succession again, making the Speaker of the House next in line, as it remains to this day (and continues to under the terms of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment). President Harry S. Truman, who succeeded Franklin Roosevelt following his death, thought someone elected, not appointed, should be next in the list of succession if necessary.

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, Vice President Lyndon Johnsons car followed behind. Kennedys body was rushed to Dallass Parkland Hospital, and when Johnson arrived, the heart attack survivor (1955) was seen with his hand on his heart (any chest pains may have been from the force of Secret Service agent Ralph Youngbloods pushing LBJ to the floor of his car after hearing shots). Had Johnson had another heart attack and died (he wouldnt survive another in January of 1973, at just sixty-four), seventy-one-year-old Speaker John Mc Cormack would have become the thirty-sixth or thirty-seventh president, depending on whether Johnson succumbed before or after being sworn in himself.

If anything, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment was long overdue. History makes one wonder what took so long, considering the frequency with which the country lacked a second in command. The slow death of James Garfield in 1881 over eighty days (from being shot and incompetent doctoring), Woodrow Wilsons incapacitation for the last eighteen months of his presidency (stroke), Dwight Eisenhowers multiple issues (heart attack, intestinal surgery, minor stroke), complicated the matter, compounded by the fact that fifteen presidents and vice presidents had died between 1812 and 1963. For a combined thirty-eight years, we did not have a vice president.

Fortunately, that amendment came in handy just six years later when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned. President Nixon was able to nominate a successor, Congressman Gerald Ford of Michigan, with congressional approval. Eight months later when Nixon resigned, Ford became the thirty-eighth president of the United States, and the only person to hold that office without being elected by the American people. He then appointed former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller as his VP.

Jimmy Carter and his Vice President Walter Mondale changed the nature of the office, giving Mondale far more responsibility and inclusion into decision making. Richard Cheney was undeniably one of the most influential vice presidents. Mike Pence has certainly been in the news after the Trump presidency, for better or worse, and isnt hiding his own ambitions to occupy the Oval Office. Kamala Harris, finally, became both the first woman and person of color to serve as vice president.

One of the vice presidential duties the Constitution does stipulate is breaking a tie vote in the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 4). This has happened 291 times in history through May 12, 2022. With the current 50-50 split in the Senate, Vice President Kamala Harris has been performing this duty frequently, twenty-three times already. When Georgias Democratic candidates, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, won their runoff elections, the Senate was tied for the fourth time in history, something that previously occurred in 2000, 1954, and 1881.

Excerpt from:
For 38 Years of American History, There Has Been No Vice President - History News Network

Imagine being a mother forced to identify your 14-year-old child using the ring he wore because his body was mutilated beyond recognition. Imagine that his murderers beat him bloody, gouged out his eye, shot him in the head, and tied a 75-pound cotton gin fan to his neck before throwing him in Tallahatchie River.

I cant imagine that, nor what it was like to be Black in Money, Miss., in 1955. Im white. Had I been alive then, working the counter of a country store as Carolyn Bryant, a white woman, then 21, had done, any accusation I might have made, however false or exaggerated, could have easily sent depraved assailants into a murderous rage upon a child.

Emmett Till, a Chicago native, had been visiting relatives in the Mississippi Delta when a trip to the store to buy two cents worth of bubble gum led to Bryants accusations that he made ugly remarks and whistled after her when he left. Days after the encounter, her husband, Roy Bryant, and his half-brother J.W. Milam drove a pickup truck to the house where Emmett was staying 50 feet off a gravel road. They parked under cedar and persimmon trees and proceeded to pound on the door, flashlight and .45 Colt gun in hand. It was 2 a.m. Emmetts great-uncle Moses (Preacher) Wright, then 64, tried to persuade them against abducting the child, but the assailants were on a mission.

The lynching that followed was not the first blood-soaked racist stain upon our country. But Emmetts story helped ignite a burgeoning civil rights movement when his mother insisted on an open-casket funeral.

Let the world see what has happened. Mamie Till-Mobleys words rang powerful. Fifty thousand mourners attended the boys funeral, and Jet magazine published a photo of Emmetts pulverized remains.

She rose to the occasion like no other person could have done at that time, reflects Deborah Watts, Emmetts cousin and co-founder of the Emmett Till Legacy Foundation. [She] tried to turn her pain into power to change the trajectory of racism in America.

FILE - Mamie Till Mobley weeps at her son's funeral on Sept. 6, 1955, in Chicago. The mother of Emmett Till insisted that her son's body be displayed in an open casket forcing the nation to see the brutality directed at Blacks in the South at the time. (Chicago Sun-Times/Chicago Sun-Times via AP)

Watts used to spend time with Mamie Till-Mobley, cutting one of her wonderful cakes or eating her sweet potato pie. Theyd talk about things, because there were witnesses to the kidnapping that would come to the family home, and Emmetts mother often tried to clarify what really happened to her son.

There had been a poor excuse of a trial. In September 1955, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam were acquitted by a white male jury who deliberated a mere 67 minutes. The defense attorney had counseled the jury that their white ancestors would turn over in their graves, if they found the men guilty. Im sure every last Anglo-Saxon one of you has the courage to free these men.

How brazen and confident in ones sense of supreme whiteness! A few months later, Look magazine, published an interview with the killers, in which they disclosed the horrific details around their abduction and murder of Emmett.

The Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause was the only thing that stood between them and another trial for his death, explains Paula Johnson, professor of law, and co-director of the Cold Case Justice Initiative at Syracuse University. That means that no one has been held legally responsible for the death of Emmett Till which was such a notorious, and open and unabashed crime in this nations history that to the extent that people who were involved and never had to answer for it are still alive, then there really is no reason why they should not be held to answer, she states.

There is no statute of limitations on murder. Now, accountability is within reach, and must be fiercely pursued with no less vigor and commitment than has been directed toward fugitive Nazis, however old and feeble, or unobtrusive they might present.

On June 21, Deborah and her daughter, Teri Watts, foundation members, and a documentarian unearthed a 1955 warrant charging kidnapping, and commanding the taking (arrest) of J.W. Milam, Roy Bryant and Mrs. Roy (Carolyn) Bryant.

What this warrant indicates for us is that those two most certainly did not act alone, Johnson tells us. The fact that her name is on the warrant means that there was probable cause to believe that Carolyn Bryant had some role in the death of Emmett Till.

Bryant and Milam died years back of cancer. But Carolyn Bryant Donham, now 88, is alive, and was seen publicly last week for the first time in 20 years, in Kentucky.

Why wasnt she arrested?

The warrant reads that police couldnt find her in the county. Furthermore, a sheriff said he did not bother to serve the warrant because Carolyn Bryant had two young children at home.

A 14-year-old Black youths life had been taken because of some alleged insult to a white woman and she isnt held accountable for that because she has children? Johnson calls out the racist absurdity. Well Mamie Till-Mobley had a child as well, and we see what happened to him. Deborah Watts take: Someone who was an accomplice in a kidnapping or a murderwould that be acceptable to you? It shouldnt have been acceptable in 55, and it is definitely not acceptable in 2022.

The family has fiercely and relentlessly persevered over the decades. Mamie Till-Mobley spent a lifetime channeling hope and passion into purpose, until her death in 2003.

Attempts to bring justice have been pursued in the past, with disappointing outcomes. In 2004, the Justice Department reopened an investigation. But in 2007, a grand jury in Leflore County, Miss., refused to issue a new indictment against Carolyn Bryant Donham, 73 at the time.

In 2017, the DOJ reopened the investigation again, but closed it. There have been discrepancies about what she said or didnt say. Historian and Duke scholar Timothy Tyson quoted her as admitting that her earlier accusations of lewd behavior were not true. Later, Carolyn Bryant Donham recanted that.

We need to know the truth. If she was an accessory, we need to know what role she played. Did her account, or any assistance she may have provided, lead to a conspiratorial demand, as Johnson puts it? Is Carolyn Bryant Donham culpable in the kidnapping and murder of Emmett Till?

It would be unpopular among many to roust an old woman whos reportedly legally blind and receiving hospice care at home. The passage of time will create other challenges, plus there are jurisdiction hurdles. The DA office in Mississippi would need to request cooperation from his counterparts to serve the warrant for extradition purposes, Johnson explains. Meanwhile, on July 17, in a flagrant dereliction of duty, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch declared no intention to prosecute Carolyn Bryant Donham. This, despite the recent find of her unpublished memoir, in which she wrote that men had dragged Emmett to her kitchen in the night for identification.

Weekdays

Catch up on the days top five stories every weekday afternoon.

Those charged with the duty to execute the warrant must be held to full account as well. Failure to step up, as dictated by law and the tenets of a civil and humane society, renders them entirely complicit as so often has been the case at the state and federal levels of law enforcement institutions, with regard to justice around racially motivated murders of Black people.

Not unlike prosecuting elderly Nazis for crimes committed decades ago, its critical to bring cases to trial when heinous and hateful crimes have been executed, most especially barbaric acts spawned from racism, fueled by perverse codes of honor that had a way of compelling certain white menfolk toward depravity.

While sometimes difficult to overcome prosecutors decisions, Johnson explains that abuse of discretion claims can be brought. The DOJ will have to look at this for federal jurisdiction, based on possible civil rights violations committed by Donham as part of a conspiracy to deprive Emmett of his civil rights. Doable, given that the arrest warrant provides a basis to subpoena Donham and obtain further information based on the existence of probable cause.

We saw such involvement at the federal level on Aug. 4, when U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland announced federal charges against four police officers for violation of civil rights related to the killing of Breonna Taylor; in this case, based on falsifying information used to obtain the search warrant that led to her tragic death.

Carolyn Bryant Donhams role must be fully investigated. She must be held to full account for any culpability around the kidnapping and murder of Emmett Louis Till. If she has nothing to hide, let her step out of the shadows to set the record straight.

We are traumatized people trying to seek out justice, Deborah Watts wants us to know. Now we just need the law enforcement and the authorities, the DA in Mississippi, to be willing and to have the courage to move this forward and hold her accountable for her roleIts painful that its taken this long. Were not asking for something that shouldnt be done. And no, were not forgetting. And no, were not moving on.

Hetherman is a freelance journalist.

See more here:
Emmett Till is gone. The quest for justice lives on. - New York Daily News

The Ethical Society of Police said it was not part of discussions to create the Civilian Oversight Bill.

ST. LOUIS St. Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones accused the Ethical Society of Police of lying on its Facebook page after the membership group issued a statement accusing her administration of excluding them from discussions about a controversial civilian oversight bill.

Jones signed Board Bill 47Wednesday, which she said will hold officers more accountable by creating a Civilian Oversight Board that the police union says has the power to discipline officers, review personnel records and all categories of complaints levied against officers.

The Ethical Society of Police is a membership organization for primarily Black Officers.

The statement signed by its board that drew Jones ire read: Today, the City of St. Louis Board Bill 47 was signed. Though ESOP along with the other two labor unions opposed the bill, we understand the need for a civilian oversight board. We were never brought to the table to provide insight for the bill, which was written too broadly. We've had discussions with the other two labor unions and are in agreement that there needs to be fair representation in amending the bill. ESOP is concerned that, if it is not implemented carefully, good officers could be targeted by persons with a hidden agenda against law enforcement.

Jones replied to the Facebook post with, That's not true and is a bold-faced LIE. We've been talking about this bill for nearly a year. Ald. Clark Hubbard had three hearings and you didn't show up and testify. I had quarterly meetings with your leadership and no one said a word. Again, if you're a good officer, you have nothing to worry about. I thought ESOP stood for holding bad actors accountable? I think you should give the law a chance to work before suggesting amendments. Be blessed.

The Ethical Society of Police then responded to her post with, It is not our intent to publicly debate the extent to which input from our organization and others was sought during the crafting of this legislation. Our only intent is to ensure this legislation doesnt have an unintended negative impact on the Department and the community. Waiting until damage has been done is neither wise nor an attribute of an effective leader.

We strongly object to the Mayor's unprofessional response and attempt to degrade our organizational values or marginalize our commitment to the fair and equitable treatment of the community we serve. ESOP has been and will always be about accountability, and we welcome an oversight board. We are calling for the thoughtful implementation of this bill and input from organizations that represent constituents. This should be welcome, not controversial.

Jones responded back with: Ethical Society of Police, you dont want to publicly debate this but you made a public statement on a public platform and didnt attend any of the public hearings to publicly express your thoughts and insight about the bill when it was being debatedin public. Might I add that your former president, who is now the Deputy Public Safety Director, was at the table for almost every discussion of this bill. I frequently heard her push back and change several provisions with every day officers in mind. Heather (Taylor) brings her entire lived experience as an officer and as former president of ESOP to the table with her every single day. Are you also saying that shes wrong? Again, if youre a good officer, you dont have anything to worry about.

On Friday morning, the Ethical Society of Police responded.

"We did not want to get into the weeds with the Mayor of the City of St. Louis on social media. However, the continued allegations that we are lying must be corrected.

"The leadership of the Ethical Society of Police was unaware of Board Bill 47 until June 2022. We were not informed of any public hearings or invited to provide input. The bill was not brought up with the Mayor because we were not aware of the bill any of the times we met. She did not bring it up.

"On June 27, 2022, at the 18th Ward Community Meeting, the ESOP President expressed to the citizens that ESOP was in support of a Civilian Oversight Board (COB), but we could not support the bill as it was written because the language was unclear. Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard was present at this meeting.

"There was no further outreach or invitation for input until Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard sent an email to the ESOP President on July 12, three days before voting. We felt it was too late to hold a meeting and dissect this lengthy and broad bill. We informed her after the ESOP general membership meeting that we could not support the bill and it 'should be shelved until it is amended to be fair to those officers and civilians of the SLMPD.'

"During the week of voting, we made two official statements detailing our specific concerns with the bill and encouraging the public to vote against the bill in its current form. We have made it clear that we support the Civilian Oversight Board and officers should be accountable for use-of-force incidents.

"While the Mayor is speaking disrespectfully by saying we Bold Face Lie, we are the same officers who are voters and residents and who endorsed her for Mayor. We do not understand this unprofessional approach to question the integrity of an organization that advocates for officers instead of addressing real concerns in the bill, such as how a teenager could be allowed to sit on the COB. Let's discuss our concerns and how the bill can be implemented to mitigate those concerns.

"The St. Louis Police Officers Association is one of the labor associations ESOP referenced in their statement. The unions attorney Brian Millikan said the issue with the citys ordinance is not about whether an officer is a good one or not its about protecting their rights as citizens.

What were concerned with is the ordinance has to comply with state law and it needs to comply with basic due process requirements afforded under the law, Millikan said. For us, this is more about complying with state law and giving city employees due process.

The police union is preparing to file a lawsuit against the city because of the bill, Millikan said.

The state statute authorizes cities to create civilian review boards, and I stress review thats what the statute allows, Millikan said. It allows them to investigate, review and make recommendations to the agency on what the review board believes should be appropriate discipline.

This goes way beyond that.

The state statute also identifies categories of complaints civilian review boards can review, but the citys new bill gives the civilian oversight board the power to review complaints carte blanche, Millikan said.

It also violates numerous provisions of the Police Officer Bill of Rights and allows investigators to compel officers to immediately answer questions about any use of force or internal investigation on a citizen complaint, Millikan said.

One of the key provisions of the citys bill that violates the Missouri Police Officers Bill of Rights requires officers to give statements immediately following an incident, Millikan said.

Police officers have 24 hours to obtain counsel prior to being interrogated, Millikan said.

And the citys bill also allows statements officers give to Internal Affairs investigators to be used against them in criminal investigations which violates one of the most established laws known as the Garrity rule. Its based on a case called Garrity v. New Jersey in which the court decided statements officers are forced to give as a condition of their employment cannot be used against them in a criminal investigation.

The citys ordinance calls for a comingling of information between the criminal and internal investigations, he said. Officers are citizens of this country and have constitutional rights against self-incrimination just like anyone else.

In an internal investigation, they dont have the right to remain silent. The Supreme Court has said officers are immune in those situations from having those statements used against them otherwise it violates their fifth amendment privilege to remain silent.

Millikan said the police union is also concerned about the dissemination of a police officers personnel records, as the citys ordinance calls for public reports from the Civilian Oversight Board.

"Accountability is the first step of building trust," said Jones in a news conference regarding the bill signing Wednesday. Jones said good law enforcement officers should continue to serve the community and bad officers would be held accountable.

"We've never worked so hard on a bill we pray we never have to use," said Alderwoman Shameem Clark Hubbard.

Dan Isom said it was a step to strengthen trust between the public and police.

"The division of civilian oversight builds on our current accountability system giving our oversight process actual teeth with more investigative and subpoena power, the division will take the role of Internal Affairs in conducting investigations into use of force and allegations of officer misconduct," Isom said.

Read the rest here:
'A bold-faced LIE': St. Louis mayor blasts Black police officer groups criticism of oversight bill - KSDK.com

In front of a microphone with the cameras on him, Alex Jones looked comfortable on his first day of testimony. The delusional provocateur and conspiracy peddler sauntered to the witness stand in an Austin, Texas, courtroom, shirt unbuttoned without a tie, and introduced himself to the jury with his characteristic, gravelled intonation.

I actually feel good because I have a chance to say whats really going on instead of the corporate media and high-powered law firms manipulating what I actually did, Jones said. My big frustration is people saying Im personally going after them, when I question every event.

Jones, who has stoked dangerous fires of disinformation and distrust on the far right for decades, was facing trial last week to determine how much he owes families of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting which he long proclaimed was a hoax.

Outside the courtroom last week, a new documentary that casts him as a free-speech activist was released. Throughout, Jones has continued to broadcast lies and disinformation to a huge audience online.

In court, however, he was held to a different standard. After testifying for two days including a rigorous cross-examination that left Jones sweating and visibly uncomfortable a Texas jury ordered him to pay a total of $49.3m (40.8m) in damages to the parents of one of the Sandy Hook victims. He still faces several lawsuits from other families.

The judge, Maya Guerra Gamble, scolded Jones, after he told untruths at least twice on the stand. It seems absurd to instruct you again that you must tell the truth when you testify, but here I am: you must tell the truth while you testify, she said. This is not your show.

Jones tried to interject, saying he had only said what he believed to be the truth.

You believe everything you say is true, but it isnt. Your beliefs do not make something true. That is what were doing here, the judge said.

The new documentary, Alexs War, was directed by Alex Lee Moyer and made with the cooperation of Jones. It charts his rise from a fringe public-access TV host to leader of rallies on 6 January 2021 that ended in a violent insurrection at the US Capitol.

Jones says in the documentary that he grew up a voracious reader. Starting with comic books and science-fiction, an obsession with history books began when he read Shakespeares Julius Caesar. He lists a number of books written about the second world war and the Nazi regime that he read as a young man. Among the ones that most shaped his thinking, he says, was None Dare Call it a Conspiracy, by Gary Allen, a prominent member of the ultraconservative John Birch Society. The book claims that an all-powerful group of businessmen, communists and socialists are secretly trying to take control of the world.

But Jones didnt take to the airwaves with his conspiracy theories until after the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound outside Waco, Texas, a few hours north of Austin. The botched raid, in which four federal officers and 82 civilians were killed, stirred up anti-government sentiment in many far-right circles. For Jones, it was a call to action.

He began hosting a show on Austins public-access television station, where he was a fringe personality who ranted about impending martial law, and began developing the on-air persona that would make him rich later in life.

After the domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh said he bombed an Oklahoma City federal building in 1995 as retribution for the Waco raid, Jones began interviewing people who claimed the government had staged the attack. Apparently unable to accept that he shared the same view as McVeigh, he rationalised the Oklahoma bombing as a false-flag operation.

He moved his show to Austins talk radio station in 1996, and helped raise $93,000 to memorialise the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. His show was cancelled in 1999 because his views made it difficult for the station to find sponsors.

But in the early days of the internet, Jones set up shop in a spare bedroom of his Austin home and started broadcasting online with a new name Infowars and sold his show to nearly 100 FM and AM stations across the US.

After the 9/11 attacks, he began spreading more theories that the terrorist attacks were staged. He lost some syndication for his wild views, but online, his popularity continued to grow. I dont do it for the monetary thing. I do it for the truth, Jones said at his trial last Tuesday, and the monetary thing comes with it because people can tell Im not reading from a script. Im not lying like the corporate media on purpose.

On his regular Infowars show, Jones is bombastic and animated. He gets worked up into fierce diatribes about such matters as demons and politics, fluoride in the water supply and an interlinked global conspiracy that is responsible for everything from Covid to gun control.

During the Obama administration, Jones ramped up racist and virulent rants against the nations first Black president. His influence and audience continued to grow, bolstered by, and helping to spread, a bigoted and nationalistic alt-right movement.

Jones also continued to spread untrue theories about terrorist attacks, mass shootings and major tragedies, claiming they were false-flag events where paid crisis-actors showed up to promote an agenda from a globalist new world order. When I say staged, I mean they knew it was going to happen and stood back and let it happen, Jones testified last week. Thats what I thought about Sandy Hook.

Jones purports to be a free speech advocate, and that the lies he spreads are protected by the US constitution. But limits to the first amendment include speech that defames someone or is dangerous.

In some ways, there is no question that Alex Jones exercises his first amendment right to express himself and raise questions about public events, says Roy Gutterman, director of the the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University. But this case also shows that the law of defamation does limit what false and potentially harmful statements some speakers may make.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks hate and extremist groups in the US, calls Jones the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America. Michael Edison Hayden, an investigative reporter and spokesman for the SPLC, says Joness ability to influence a huge audience makes his speech dangerous. He is an amusing carnival barker so we kind of ignore many of the things that are staring us right in the face about how hateful he is, Hayden says. He has probably done more to further the cause of hate in this country than almost anyone outside of Donald Trump himself.

Jones has been able to grow his Infowars platform through a lucrative sales model where he hawks specially made products on air, such as a variety of survivalist gear and a line of overpriced and ineffective vitamins and supplements. He testified last week that the company raked in $165m in sales between September 2015 and December 2018. With Jones, fascism is a business, Hayden says.

As the Infowars audience grew in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, Jones also gained a new fan and regular guest: Trump. He ramps up his grift through the rise of extremist activism under Trump and sort of hitches his wagon of sales to Trumps rise, Hayden says. To me, thats Jones in his final form, which is just coming from this libertarian, entrepreneurial, conspiracy-obsessed world to becoming something that is much more what we would call fascist.

Dan Friesen had heard of Alex Jones before the 2016 election, but had mainly seen his conspiracy videos in online rabbit holes, not taking him terribly seriously. The Chicago comedian was surprised to see Jones aligning with Trump.

I just thought it was kind of like a guy who was trying to hold the system accountable, because thats the presentation of what the show is, Friesen says. He began looking into Joness broadcasts more. As we went along, it became so clear how so many of the things that he does are awful. I found so many problems with his ideology, and also the way he abuses information, that I started to take it more seriously.

Now Friesen co-hosts a podcast, Knowledge Fight, where he breaks down Infowars shows and Joness rhetoric. He says that Jones uses the same toolbox of disinformation tactics to mislead listeners. Often, he will share a real headline from a mainstream news outlet on air, but make up what is in the actual article. He also regularly uses illegitimate sources, but tells listeners it is from the most prestigious expert.

Its just a complete farce of information, Friesen says. He doesnt care about anything except for what he can use to defend the point he intends to make.

Friesen came to Austin last week to cover the Sandy Hook trial for the podcast. Its tiring work, he says, but important. He has heard from listeners who say his podcast has helped them reconnect with family members whose relationships have been damaged by the dangerous theories Jones spreads.

Things like Alex, its nonsense and propaganda that has an effect on the real world, Friesen says. People are seeing this one way or another, whether or not its being given an appropriate critical view.

The investigations into Joness involvement with the 6 January insurrection and Sandy Hook trials could have an impact on Infowars, but it is unlikely Jones will disappear completely. Recently, the SPLC reported that an anonymous donor gave an $8m bitcoin donation to Infowars, despite its parent company filing for bankruptcy during the trial.

I dont see what would be stopping him, Friesen says. I mean, if your entire existence has been about yelling, for like, 20-odd years, and relishing that attention, I dont know how you can go away.

By aligning with Trump, Joness popularity and influence grew rapidly. Trump used false and misleading Infowars headlines to prop up his to become president. Jones said on his show that Obama and Hillary Clinton were demons from hell and smelled of sulphur.

In 2017, Jones helped spread the dangerous QAnon conspiracy theory that wrongly posits that Trump was working to overthrow a cannibalistic, satanist, paedophilic cabal that secretly controlled the US government.

Over the next several years, tech platforms began banning Jones and Infowars for spreading misleading information and hate speech against a number of minority groups. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, Apple and others have removed his content and banned his accounts.

Jones supported Trumps re-election campaign and organised stop the steal rallies across the US after he lost. According to the New York Times, he helped fundraise for the rallies on 6 January before the violent insurrection. That day, he participated in the march to the Capitol, and posted an Infowars video saying: We need to understand were under attack, and we need to understand this is 21st-century warfare and get on a war-footing.

His ties to other far-right groups that organised the insurrection have made him a key witness for the US Houses committee investigating the 6 January attack. Jones sued Congress when he was subpoenaed for his mobile phone records and text messages, but eventually spoke to the committee, invoking his fifth amendment right not to give self-incriminating evidence more than 100 times, according to his lawyers. Later, he sought immunity from federal prosecutors.

During Joness testimony last week, attorneys for the Sandy Hook family presented evidence showing he had lied under oath, even though he ultimately admitted the attack was 100% real. Jones dodged and found ways to talk around questions he didnt want to answer, while still calling out corporate media whenever he had a chance.

But on the sixth day of testimony, before Jones took the stand, the parents of six-year-old victim Jesse Lewis told jurors how Jones had made the past decade even more unbearable. They talked about extended trauma and near-constant fear of attack from Joness listeners who believe that they are paid actors and that their son never existed.

Alex was the one with the match that started the fire, the boys father, Neil Heslin testified. He had a strong voice and he had a platform and he had power.

At that moment, Jones was not in the courtroom but in his Austin studio, calling Heslin slow and continuing to peddle his inane theories about the 2012 shooting.

When Jones returned from his studio that afternoon, Scarlett Lewis, the boys mother, testified that losing her child was like losing a limb. She still has phantom pains, she says, like he should be there but is not.

We went from having a child murdered and this impossible, lifelong journey but its something you can process. This, I cant, she said. Its this element thats always in the background, of fear, [that] keeps me from healing.

The parents testified that Joness reach went beyond just unhinged theorists online. Lewis said she has had death threats, and received harassing emails and phone calls from Joness listeners. One Christmas, a man pulled up in front of the house and began taking photos of her and the property. Another time, someone drove by firing a gun and shouting Alex Jones and Infowars. Lewis now sleeps with a knife and a gun nearby.

Truth, truth is so vital to our world. Truth is what we base a society on, she testified, speaking directly to Jones across the courtroom. I think you know that Sandy Hook is real and that it happened, but I dont think you understand at all the repercussions of going on air with a huge audience and lying It seems so incredible to me that we have to do this, that we have to implore you not just implore you, punish you to stop you from lying.

Heslin and Lewis were seeking $150m in compensation, but said they were pleased with the verdict. It also emerged last week that Joness lawyer had inadvertently passed Joness text messages from the past two years to Heslin and Lewiss attorney, Mark Bankston. The House committee investigating 6 January has requested to see them.

Bankston said,With punitive damages still to be decided and multiple [other pending legal matters], it is clear that Mr Joness time on the American stage is finally coming to an end.

See the original post:
He has done more to further the cause of hate in the US than almost anyone: the rise and fall of Alex Jones - The Guardian

In early January 2022, seven months after the district attorney told the court he believed Ciria was innocent, Giorgi finally delivered her response. She wrote that she questioned the reliability of the Peoples investigation through the Innocence Commission, as the State simply did not do enough. Arguing that she couldnt assess the credibility of the witnesses using only the commissions report, Giorgi ordered an evidentiary hearing. Now, both sides would have to do exactly what they assumed the DAs decision would make unnecessary: come to court to question the witnesses in front of a judge.

Eggers, Cirias attorney, was livid. I thought it was extremely unusual and unfortunate that a Superior Court judge would choose to ignore the fact that both sides were in total agreement on someones innocence. That seems appalling to me, she told me later. Most frustrating to her was that if the judge believed a hearing was necessary anyway, she could have ordered it more than half a year before time that Ciria had spent sitting in Folsom.

Bazelon took a more measured tone. A judge is not a potted plant. They dont have to do what the DA and defense counsel tell them to do, she said. But, she added, To me, the orders read more like advocacy, the advocacy of a traditional prosecutor. And that was also not what I was expecting, to be honest.

Giorgis response was less surprising to Patricia Cummings, who recently became the director of the National Registry of Exonerations after several years running the conviction integrity unit in Philadelphia, one of the most successful in the country. Cummings told me she encountered similar skepticism from judges in Philly while working for Larry Krasner another figurehead of the progressive prosecution movement.

Judges get confused and very, you know, distrustful, because all of a sudden, youve got a prosecutor whos not advocating for conviction and punishment, she said. When facing a new investigative body, operated by a prosecutor whose priorities they dont necessarily trust, Cummings explained, some judges opt to put on the brakes and check the work themselves.

Cummings sees some of that as reasonable judges wanting to do their due diligence. But some times, she said, it comes down to an old-fashioned understanding of courtroom roles, and the person who bears the burden is the one waiting in prison. The Supreme Court has decreed that prosecutors have a two-fold mandate: to ensure that guilt shall not escape nor innocence suffer. But in extreme cases, judges have gone so far as to argue that addressing a wrongful conviction is not within the DAs power even when everyone else believes the person innocent.

Also hard to separate out, Cummings said, is plain old politics. By the time Cirias case got to Giorgi, the debate surrounding a district attorneys role had grown more heated in San Francisco than perhaps anywhere else in the country. While many on the left saw Boudins reforms as a necessary corrective to a cruel and inequitable system, he was also facing a recall campaign from a growing contingent of San Franciscans who accused him of making the city less safe, and his every move met with intense scrutiny.

This summer, I emailed Giorgi to ask if the controversy around the DA had shaped her approach to Cirias case. She declined to comment, citing the judicial code of ethics.

But in Bazelons mind, there was little question that the drama engulfing Boudin was having an impact on this case. If Chesa had been a middle of the road or, you know, right-leaning prosecutor, it would have gone completely differently, she later told me.

Whatever the reason, it was clear that the DAs faith in Cirias innocence had not cleared the way for his release. The Court is not bound to the concessions of the parties, Giorgi wrote in January. And rather than preparing to help Ciria reenter the world, his lawyers found themselves getting ready for court.

For the hearing, the case was assigned a new judge: Brendan Conroy. When Bazelon and Hurtado met with him in early February, Conroy seemed to have few of Giorgis reservations about the commissions investigation. The record as to the alibi witnesses, Socorro, and the identification issues appears to be fully developed and will be considered, he wrote in an email the next day, asking only to hear from George Varela the young man whod implicated Ciria and the two women whod told Eggers hed later admitted lying. Conroy scheduled the first day of the hearing for just a week and a half later.

Over the next two months, the parties met in the courtroom three times to interview the witnesses. Denise Corretjer, Varelas older sister, testified that her brother had told her years later that he knew Ciria was innocent, and that hed just gone along with what the police wanted him to say. Speaking over Zoom from prison, Caridad Gonzalez a longtime friend of Varelas family explained that hed told her the same.

Hurtado, cross-examining the witnesses on behalf of the district attorneys office, asked questions aimed at clearing up credibility: whether Ciria had asked the witnesses to help him, what their criminal records were, why they hadnt come forward sooner. Her tone was respectful. For spectators used to the theatrics of a traditional trial, this quiet, collaborative courtroom was almost bizarre. Rather than trying to catch an opposing witness off-guard or manipulate the facts into a more convenient and compelling story, both the prosecution and the defense were probing for the truth. And on that matter, there was no dispute: both sides had publicly proclaimed their belief in Cirias innocence months before.

In early April 2022, Ciria watched over Zoom from Folsom as the young man hed considered a stepson was led into the room in handcuffs. (Varela, whod never agreed to speak to the commission, had refused to answer the judges subpoena, and had arrived in court only after he was arrested for a different crime.)

But the long-awaited moment was anticlimactic. After each question (Did you allegedly drive Mr. Ciria to the scene of where Mr. Felix Bastarrica was murdered? Did you see him shoot anyone on that day? Did the police pressure you into saying that Mr. Ciria was the person who killed Mr. Bastarrica?) Varela invoked his fifth amendment rights. Answering the questions truthfully would likely have meant admitting hed been lying on the stand in 1991, and the DAs office declined to offer him immunity from perjury. So the opportunity to hear what had really happened on the night of March 25, 1990 from the prosecutions key witness disappeared. Now, Conroy had all the evidence he was going to get.

Just over a week later, on April 18, the parties gathered a final time for the judges ruling. Ciria was allowed to attend in person. Behind him in the courtroom, his son watched, too.

Conroy said the evidence against Ciria at trial had not been overwhelming, but not weak, either. Still, he said, hed found the testimony in the courtroom plus that of Socorro before the commission to be convincing. Combined with the faulty eyewitness tactics the commissions expert had explained, he found it reasonably likely that one juror would change their mind.

Read the original post:
Even the District Attorney Believed Joaquin Ciria Was Innocent. Why Did It Take So Long to Set Him Free? - POLITICO