By Helene Bednarsh Please don’t misunderstand: I am not an antivaxxer. Rather, as a public health professional for 47 years, I am an avid proponent of immunization for vaccine-preventable disease for one’s own good and the good of the community. But I personally have an Achille’s heel that could potentially make the current vaccinations too risky. I have allergies, an epipen and a history of anaphylaxis. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Growing up in Michigan I thought hay fever was endemic, not dangerous--just a nuisance. I’ve lived in many different states and one thing each had in common was that I would find some new allergen that attacked my body—again, a nuisance. I should have bought stock in antihistamines then. But it was when I moved to South Dakota in 1977 that I discovered my allergy to bee stings. At that time, I was working in the Aberdeen Area Indian Health Service and traveling between four states and a dozen reservations by car or by plane. One morning, I was simply walking my dog and was stung by a ground bee. I thought nothing of it until my leg swelled ankle on up. My doctor said it was an extreme reaction, as if I couldn’t tell, and that the next sting could lead to anaphylaxis. As I was soon to learn, anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that can occur within seconds or minutes of exposure to peanuts or bee stings, or something else you're allergic to. So he gave me a syringe and a vial of epinephrine and had me practice doing injections of saline into an orange. Having given injections before, that was no problem. I left with the epi, syringe and a note allowing me to carry them. As careful as I was, I found that even in the presence of others, I would be the one stung. I was so happy when the Ana-Kit came out – a preloaded syringe in a case by prescription. Years later, the epipen injection device to deliver epinephrine went on the market. Wow! Easy and convenient, and I never left home without it. I have been hesitant to speak or write about this since I do not want to contribute to anti-vaccination conspiracy theories or discourage anyone who is eligible to be immunized. I am an outlier of sorts--if I get a bee or wasp sting or am in the presence of a cat, I am one of the rare ones who may suffer anaphylaxis. In that case, I must immediately inject two doses of epinephrine to counteract it, and then head to a hospital. But this is me and I know how to manage it and live with it. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve injected myself but probably 20 or so. Let’s just say I don’t leave home without it. So naturally reports about people who’ve suffered anaphylaxis after a Covid vaccine have given me pause. First there were headlines about two nurses in the U.K. then about a healthcare worker in Alaska, a doctor in Boston and a physician in Miami, then more news of other of allergic reactions from around the world. Some of the people who experienced anaphylaxis had allergies or other underlying medical conditions, others did not. All but one person was successfully treated. (That person developed an extremely rare autoimmune disease.) Despite that, I have not ruled out being immunized. Instead, I am taking an evidence-based approach. I contacted my primary care physician and he said yes, you should get a vaccine, but bring knitting or reading materials because we will keep you here for a long time to observe you and monitor any reactions. On the other hand, I have not contacted my allergist here in Massachusetts, since he told me, after my second anaphylactic reaction to the cat allergy injection he gave me, that he liked me but never wanted to see me again. On that occasion, I was so excited that an allergy shot to protect against cat dander was available and went in for testing and to schedule the allergy shots. After the first dose, three minutes in, I found myself being hauled into an exam room and injected with epinephrine. They wouldn’t even tell me what my heart rate was, but three hours later they let me leave. A month later they thought it safe enough to administer a child-size dose, same reaction and that was the handshake and goodbye. I get it. However, I am the kind of person who delves into things much too much. I read the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization practices report, searched the FDA website for adverse reporting, and tortured myself by joining a CDC COCA call (Clinician Outreach and Communication Activity) on allergic reactions, contraindications, and precautions. Too much information, alas. I even emailed the link of the recording to my PCP who affirmed that I needed to step away. So, armed with entertainment, my own epipens and theirs, I’ll get my vaccine when I can because, in the end, the most important protection we can have is immunity. In Eula Biss’ 2014 book, On Immunity, she aimed to bring “substance and common sense” to the vaccination debate, as “an inoculation against ignorance and fearmongering.’ And this week, CNN advised viewers not to fear the vaccine, but to fear the virus itself. I agree. Helene Bednarsh retired this year as the Director of the Ryan White Dental Program, Boston Public Health Commission but continues to consult to the program.. She is Vice President of HIVDENT and is the Dental Director for the New England AIDS Education and Training Center. She has published numerous articles. When she’s not advocating for something, she’s knitting.

By Susan Weill I’m sure I join millions in saying that I’m tired of wearing a mask, social distancing and being isolated at home, but since I prefer to stay healthy, I’m totally on board with all the necessary precautions. At the same time, I want to have dinner with friends indoors at a restaurant, go back to taking classes at the gym, and really want to get on a plane or cruise ship and go ANYWHERE! That said, I started hunting for a COVID vaccine appointment as soon as I learned that New York was allowing all seniors (65+) to get the vaccine. As instructed, my first step was the “Am I Eligible” form. I had submitted this form last week, when I wasn’t eligible, and it took a phone call to the state’s COVID-19 Hotline to find out that the form was not retained and did not serve as an application or registration for a vaccine. This time I was able to proceed to a list of providers, sorted by distance from my home, that would be administering vaccines. The top of the list was a Rite Aid just down the street from my apartment, but they weren’t making appointments yet (turns out they didn’t have the vaccine on hand yet). The next location on the list was the Westchester County Center, which seems to be the main site in the county.When I clicked on the link to get to the next step, though, nothing happened and it timed out. After several more tries, I was beginning to think this wasn't going to work. I then spoke to my brother, who told me that my sister-in-law, a teacher, had gotten through and made an appointment for early February. So I tried again and this time, success! But I had to scroll through the rest of January, all of February and March and into April before finding a day with open slots! And even then there must have been so many people doing the same thing that each time I clicked on a time slot showing availability, it filled up. On the fourth try, I was finally able to nail down an appointment for midday on April 7. I’m relieved to have the appointment, though I wish it were sooner. I keep checking to see if New York has added any additional locations but rather than new sites, places like the Rite Aid in my neighborhood and a Northwell Health site in nearby New Rochelle (which had been #3 on the initial list) are no longer listed, probably because the vaccine supply is so limited. I also called a local CVS and Walgreens but they aren’t administering vaccines either. I’m just hoping that the supply will increase and all the glitches being reported on the news will be ancient history by April. Counting on you, President Biden! Susan Weill, a former Time Research Librarian and occasional freelance researcher, is sheltering at home in Westchester.

By Mary Coombs Being a contrarian, I’m not writing to express outrage that I don’t yet have access to a vaccination. I am upset at the glitches and failures in the rollout, especially from the federal government, which promised to ship enough vaccines to the states and – it now turns out – the stockpile is as empty as Trump’s stockpile of decency and honesty. Here in Oregon, they have decided, as many states have, to add “people over 65” to the first two categories currently allowed to access the vaccinations: front-line health care workers, and residents and staff of nursing homes/ assisted living facilities. At almost 77, I should be very happy. I actually think this is wrong-headed. In the original proposals, the second grouping was people over 65 and essential workers. To put only the former forward we thus put the essential workers much further back in the queue. The reasons for each of those groups to be early are persuasive, but different. Age corresponds to the likelihood of death or serious illness, so those who are more at risk if they do get infected should be closer to the front of the line. But more exposure corresponds to a greater likelihood of contracting Covid-19, so those who are more frequently exposed (through no fault of their own) should also be closer to the front of the line. I am particularly concerned about pushing essential workers further back: they are forced to work at jobs that make it very hard for them to protect themselves. Poultry processing workers are compelled to stand much closer than 6 feet, with only a plastic shield between them and their co-workers, because the assembly line can’t be completely reworked (and OSHA has declined to inspect or consider their concerns as part of workplace safety). Grocery store workers are often faced with customers who refuse to wear masks or to socially distance, and employers who are unable or unwilling to offend customers by enforcing the rules. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I would note that, compared to essential workers, people over 65 are more comfortable with the technology needed to sign up for the vaccinations, wealthier and whiter. They are also more politically active (and more Republican, which is why Florida’s Governor DeSantis put them up front even before the feds changed the rules). I wish we could all be vaccinated as soon as possible. But if I had to make a choice, I’d put essential workers first, and perhaps the older old (over 75 or 80) and/or with health conditions that make them more at risk. Personally, I’m willing to continue masking/social distancing/handwashing/ avoiding high risk places for a few more months. Mary I. Coombs earned a B.A. in 1965, an M.A. in sociology in 1967, an M.A. in library science in 1970, and a J.D. in 1978, all from the University of Michigan. Following graduation from law school, she served as law clerk to Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She was in private practice until she joined the University of Miami School of Law faculty in 1983. She was a professor at the law school for 31 years, until retiring in 2014

By Evelyn Renold I was thrilled to get a Covid vaccine appointment (same day, no less—and at a clinic not too far from where I live on the Upper West Side). It happened last week, and the process went smoothly with almost no wait time. But I didn’t realize what a big deal it was until afterwards, when I learned that others in our area were having a tough time getting their shots. One friend has an appointment for March 11—March 11!—which she secured with no small amount of trouble. Others have booked appointments in boroughs not their own, or in massive arenas (like the Javits Center) recently converted to medical units. To those who are still having trouble signing up, I offer this consolation: I heard on the news tonight that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to be introduced in February—trials are going well—and will only require one, as opposed to two, shots. Speaking of which, I was able to secure an appointment for my second vaccination—you have to wait a month between shots--at the same clinic. This is the Moderna vaccine, which seems to be what is mostly on offer in New York; the Pfizer requires a three-week wait. Another friend, who is to be vaccinated on Friday at a clinic on 115th Street, told me she was unable to get that second appointment, and may have to look elsewhere for her follow-up. In terms of immunity, I gather you don’t get the full benefit until two weeks after the second shot. Also, the side effects may be worse after the second vaccination. Friends of mine flew from New York to Colorado the other day to get their shots. They have a home in Telluride, where they were able to book both their Moderna vaccines. However, the doctor at the clinic advised them not to travel for two weeks after they receive the second shot. For the record, my only side effect from the first shot (so far) is a slightly achy, swollen arm. But the young woman who administered the vaccine told me she had fever chills and other symptoms. So there doesn’t seem to be much consistency. And there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of assurance in terms of the amount of vaccine that will be available in the near future. Friends in London tell me there has been talk of mixing and matching the vaccines there—e.g, you get the first shot from, say, Pfizer and the second from Moderna. But I don’t think there have been any trials to support this idea. My clinic seemed confident they would have enough vaccine in a month for my second immunization, but who knows? It’s all very chaotic—or as another friend dubbed it, “a real shit show.” A magazine and newspaper editor, Evelyn Renold now works with individual writers at evelynrenold.com

FRED PLOTKIN is one of America’s foremost experts on opera and has distinguished himself in many fields as a writer, speaker, consultant and as a compelling teacher. He is an expert on everything Italian, the person other so-called Italy experts turn to for definitive information.  Fred discovered the concept of "The Renaissance Man" as a small child and has devoted himself to pursuing that ideal as the central role of his life. In a “Public Lives” profile in The New York Times on August 30, 2002, Plotkin was described as "one of those New York word-of-mouth legends, known by the cognoscenti for his renaissance mastery of two seemingly separate disciplines: music and the food of Italy." In the same publication, on May 11, 2006, it was written that "Fred is a New Yorker, but has the soul of an Italian."

By Naomi Cohen / Calgary, Alberta Red letter, purple letter, any letter day you want---I was vaccinated yesterday against Covid-19. We had a recent case in one of the lockdown units. Unfortunately, this person passed away. and so--lockdown continues--no visitors from the outside world. I miss [her daughter and son-in-law] Deb and Steve so much--they are a delightful breath of fresh air in a fetid environment. We are not allowed to mingle with other residents and days and nights are extremely lonely. Meals are served in our rooms and it feels like being a convict in isolation. My apartment is at the very end of a long corridor. When Hal [her late husband of 68 years] and I walked, he called it “the longest mile.” Some nights before dinner, my neighbor across the hall and I sit in our respective doorways and have a glass of wine and a visit. Calgary has a lot of sunshine and I have windows all around the living room, It is usually warm enough to keep windows open making it very pleasant. The LPN just came in to take my temperature--twice a day for everyone to make sure that no one is sick. I walk Crow, my big (20 lbs!) cat, down the hallway a few times a day. He is good unless he spots an open doorway--then I have to urge him along. We have pull cords in the hall to call for help, if needed. Crow loves to pull them and we race to see who reaches them first. Cannot wait for Trump to be out of sight. May Biden and Harris be safe and well and lead us to better times! Naomi Cohen, 91, has lived at the McKenzie Towne retirement community in Calgary for nearly five years. Born and raised in Detroit, Naomi has lived in Canada since 1955, but has remained a U.S. citizen.

By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. A week ago, America’s citadel of democracy—the People’s House—was set upon by marauders. Donald J. Trump sent them there. On January 6, while the House of Representatives and the Senate were meeting in joint session, beginning their work on counting the legitimately certified Electoral College results of the 2020 election, Trump was rallying his mob behind the White House. In his one-hour-and-eleven-minute vitriolic rant, he all but threatened Vice-President Mike Pence if he didn’t “do the right thing”—that being to overturn the Electoral College votes; called the press “the enemy of the people;” and shouted, “We will never give up. We will never concede…all of us here today don’t want to see our election stolen by emboldened radical Democrats… and stolen by fake news media…that’s what they’re doing, and what they’re doing—it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft. Our country has had enough. We won’t take it anymore. We will stop the steal!” The chant from his crowd: “Fight for Trump. Fight for Trump.” Then the President sent his hordes to the Capitol where they overwhelmed the Capitol Police, broke into the Capitol building from all sides, and tried to hunt down and kill Vice-President Pence for betraying Trump, as well as Minority Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Those leaders, and House and Senate members, escaped to secure locations only just as this gang of domestic terrorists was breaking through the doors into the House and Senate chambers. Some of the invaders were carrying Trump flags or Confederate flags on poles that could be used as weapons or battering rams. Some were carrying zip ties that could be used as handcuffs on congressional members. Among the raiders were a mixture of Proud Boys, QAnon crusaders, gun activists, and other right-wing white supremacist agitators who appeared to be organized and prepared with inside information permitting them to navigate the labyrinthine halls of the Capitol in order to locate the offices of those they were hunting. A number of federal and state officials, including Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, have since said that some of these marauders were trained former police and military members, suggesting an organized, coordinated operation. Any half-way perceptive observer would have known this was coming. Trump has been building towards this coup attempt for four years and, more systematically, for the last several months. He was claiming a Biden win would be fraudulent even before the 2020 election took place. A coup was clearly Trump’s contingency plan if he lost the election. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear should have known that. Anyone who has ever seen how Trump operates or has read of how coups develop in other countries should have recognized this kind of attack was in the offing. It is impossible to believe that federal law enforcement did not. So where was the protection for our duly elected representatives as they went about their work in the Capitol? Where was the law enforcement that should have been out in strength standing at the ready for them? Where were the tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and flash bangs used so liberally against peaceful protesters after George Floyd’s murder by the police in May? WHY WAS LAW ENFORCEMENT OUTNUMBERED? Those organizing protest events in the District of Columbia are usually required to meet numerous protocols. The organizers of the D.C. protest against police brutality that took place early June of last year had to get a permit well in advance. Their route had to be approved. They had to have a contact person for relevant federal agencies. They had to post a huge insurance deposit, and clean up the sites afterwards. They followed all of these protocols and still were met with an overwhelming show of force. Yet Trump’s overwhelmingly white supporters were permitted to wreak mayhem on the Capitol and freely walk away from it. Were these many requirements waved for Trump’s supporters? And if so, with what intended purpose? Some analysts have focused on the stark difference in federal treatment of the mainly peaceful protest against police brutality and this event featuring many white supremacists with Nazi-emblazoned T-shirts and Confederate flags. Understandably, these analysts have put the difference in treatment down to race, arguing that is an example of white privilege. But the concept of “white privilege” suggests this is an issue of unequal treatment and letting white people do whatever they like because they are white. While racial hatred was part of why the June protesters were violently treated while the recent rioters were allowed to roam freely, one must suspect something deeper and even more sinister. The reason given by the Capitol Police for failure to make arrests—that they were overwhelmed and had too few officers—has merit. So, the big question is: why were they understaffed? The Federal and District governments have coordinated to handle rallies, demonstrations, and marches for longer than the 40-plus years I’ve lived in the District of Columbia. Together, they have regularly provided sufficient law enforcement to control crowds in the millions, let alone the mere 30,000 or so reported here. In fact, during the Bush years—even when there was no event occurring—on my lunch hour walks past the Capitol, I sometimes saw agents in tactical gear with assault rifles guarding the outside of the building. Given the predictably volatile nature of Trump’s “Save America” rally, and Trump’s clear intent to stir trouble with his false claims of election fraud, it is a puzzlement that the 2,000-officer Capitol Police force—overseen by Congress, not Trump—placed only 500 officers on duty during the Congressional joint session. It is highly unlikely that all of those 500 were positioned at the Capitol building. The lack of personnel had to be a decision, not a lapse. Who made that decision and why must be investigated. The initial lack of National Guard assistance was, at first, unfairly laid at the feet of the District of Columbia’s Mayor, Muriel Bowser, apparently a convenient scapegoat. The morning after the attack, NPR’s “Morning Edition” said that Bowser wanted the D.C. police to take the lead, that although she requested help from the D.C. National Guard prior to the event, she did not want them armed and only wanted their show of force to be minimal. But Bowser has no jurisdiction over the Capitol or its grounds, or any other federal land or buildings within the District. Responsibility for protecting those are divided between a variety of federal police agencies—the Capitol Police, Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, and others. Therefore, Mayor Bowser only requested D.C. National Guard members to assist the District in policing nonfederal parts of the District. It was certainly appropriate for D.C. to take the lead in those limited areas. The District also lacks any direct control over the D.C. National Guard. Since D.C. is not a state (it should be), its National Guard is controlled by the president or the official to whom he has delegated his authority—in this instance, Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller. Miller was appointed to replace fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper six days after Trump lost the 2020 election. (Esper’s apparent sin had been acknowledging that active-duty military troops should not be deployed within the United States and that his accompanying Trump to his photo op after violently clearing peaceful protesters away had been improper.) Bowser had no authority on her own to order the Army National Guard to the Capitol. Nor could she authorize District police to enter and act on federal property unless federal entities requested it. When the havoc broke out, Bowser asked that the D.C. National Guard’s authority be expanded to permit it to protect and restore the Capitol. Miller’s Department of Defense denied her request. However, when a request was made for help from the D.C. police, the District immediately sent its police force to assist in saving the Capitol. Bowser has noted that D.C. rescued the Congress while its citizens are still denied any voice in that body. In addition, during the melee inside the Capitol, Steny Hoyer, the House Majority leader and representative of Maryland’s 5th district, called Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, desperately asking him to send in Maryland’s National Guard. Hogan was more than willing, but could not send his National Guard troops across the border into the District of Columbia until he had approval from the Secretary of Defense, and the Department of Defense repeatedly denied him authority to do so. Eventually, approval was granted, but far too little, far too late—especially for the Capitol policeman who was killed or the some 50 officers who were injured. Add to these denials of requests for help and delays, the fact that Mayor Bowser and her police chief are the only ones who have given any public briefing. They did so on the day of the attack. By contrast, as of the afternoon of the following day, the Chief of the Capitol Police had not yet even contacted Speaker Pelosi. Eventually, Defense Secretary Miller issued a comment stating that the violence was “reprehensible and contrary to the tenets of the U.S. Constitution,” and strongly condemned “these acts of violence against our democracy.” But Miller also passed blame for the lack of a National Guard presence to the Capitol Police, stating that they had not made a request prior to the event. This, of course, does not explain Miller’s persistent delay in approving deployment of the National Guard when the Capital Police did make the request. These many deviations in the usual handling of protest events, especially when the possible dangers of this one had to be known, raises the question of whether there was orchestration at high levels of government to make sure that the Congress would be left unprotected and the invaders would have few obstacles to entry. It also raises the question of whether someone within the Capitol provided information concerning logistics of office locations and so on. THE CRIMINALS AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS Throughout his 2016 campaign and his four years in office, Donald Trump has used classic fascist techniques in an attempt to ensure his continued possession of power. He has told crowds at his rallies to beat people up who disagreed with him. He has tried to sic them on any journalists that criticized him. By saying that there were good people on both sides after the white supremacist/Nazi action in Charlottesville, he signaled to domestic terrorists that he was their man. In his September debate for the 2020 election, he addressed the neo-fascist Proud Boys directly, instructing them to “stand back and stand by.” Standing by for action is exactly what they did, going into action to cause mayhem at a November pro-Trump rally in the District and figuring prominently in this attack on the Capitol as well. Since Trump lost the election, he has had Rudy Giuliani and other minions conduct a propaganda campaign hammering away at the false voter fraud claim despite innumerable recounts proving there was none, and at least 60 court cases rejecting his attempts to get the election overturned. Trump has also tried to strong-arm officials in a number of swing states—Georgia’s Republican governor and secretary of state being the targets of his most notorious efforts—to “find” just enough votes to overturn valid election results and throw the win to him. But on January 6, Trump went even further, directly and repeatedly committing sedition; that is, inciting his followers to rebel against the duly elected government of the United States. Trump was aided in this sedition by Rudy Giuliani, who exhorted the thousands of pro-Trumpsters at the President’s “Save America” rally to conduct “trial by combat” of lawmakers as those lawmakers prepared to vote to certify the Electoral College results for Biden. Republican Representative from Texas Louie Gohmert also called for violence, although his incitement preceded the President’s rally by a few days. When his frivolous lawsuit to force Pence to overturn the presidential election was rejected by the courts, Gomert said to the right-wing news organ, Newsmax, “Essentially, the ruling would be: ‘You have to go to the street and be as violent as Antifa, BLM.’” After Trump’s followers rained down destruction on the Capitol, Biden called upon Trump to calm them. Trump’s response? His usual double message, suggesting the hordes go home, but applauding their terror through the words, “We love you. You’re special.” When pressured to endorse a peaceful transfer of power, Trump recited by rote that there would be an “orderly transfer of power,” but simultaneously continued to challenge the outcome of the election, saying, “I have always said we would continue our fight to ensure that only legal votes were counted. While this represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history, it’s only the beginning of our fight to make America great again.” These three people in particular—Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Louie Gohmert—should be prosecuted for their direct calls for violent overthrow of the elected government of the United States. But the Republicans in the Senate and House who have challenged the certification of Electoral College votes they know to be legitimate are also culpable. There can be no doubt that their challenges are in bad faith when those votes have been counted and recounted numerous times, and the challenges rejected in at least 60 court cases. Terrorists often have both military and political wings. The political wing always claims that it has nothing to do with the acts of the military wing. But it is, nevertheless, the propaganda arm of that military wing. The senators and members of the House challenging the certification are propagandists in aid of Trump’s attempted coup. Their speeches objecting to certification even after the attack on the Capitol legitimize the insurrectionists, and make these senators and members of Congress co-conspirators. Without proof of more direct involvement, there is likely no legal recourse against them, but some kind of action must be asserted to prevent them and discourage others from undermining our democracy. Likewise, McConnell’s initial refusal to permit the Senate to consider the House’s impeachment articles before Biden becomes president would ensure that Trump could continue to instigate more coup attempts or other mischief during his few remaining days in office. But now McConnell reportedly favors impeachment. WHERE DO WE STAND NOW? At least 20,000 National Guard troops, including those from D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Delaware, are now being deployed in the District and will remain for up to 31 days. Their support is meant to deal with any attacks that come during this period before Trump is out of office and Biden is inaugurated. Some of the domestic terrorists who attacked the Capitol have been identified and arrested. Hopefully, more will be apprehended. They could face a variety of charges ranging from unlawful entry on Capitol grounds, entering a restricted government building; and injury to property to more serious charges like possession of a deadly weapon, carrying a gun inside the Capitol building, murder, conspiring to cross state lines to commit their crimes, and sedition. As to President Trump, the House has now passed a resolution asking Vice-President Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. Under that amendment, Pence and the Cabinet could remove Trump from office. Meanwhile, the House has impeached Trump a second time. In addition, Representative Cori Bush has introduced legislation to expel from Congress Republicans who have incited violence against the United States. And Representative Jamaal Bowman is introducing the COUP Act to investigate how the domestic terrorists were able to breach the Capital. A number of those in Trump’s cabinet and Administration are suddenly jumping ship, resigning or disclaiming him, pretending to an ethical core they do not possess. Perhaps they hope to avoid sinking with him. Or perhaps they are trying to avoid having to publicly decide whether to remove Trump from office under the 25th Amendment, if Pence ever finds the nerve to invoke it. Many of Trump’s former cronies, like Bill Barr and John Kelly, are speaking out against his incitement as well—all of them the proverbial rats deserting the sinking ship. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Even now, the coup-mongers have begun their disinformation campaign, claiming it was Antifa masquerading as the right wing. Like good little Nazis, they are trying to minimize what happened. And like good little Confederates, they cast themselves as the romantic heroes of the event. Trump’s Pentagon, finally emerging from its silence, is calling the attempted overthrow of the American government a “First Amendment protest.” And already, the domestic terrorists are openly planning their next attack on Trump’s behalf, for January 17. The FBI is warning that there will be armed protests in the capitals of all 50 states. We must get through this period up to Biden’s inauguration intact. But then, to stop these attacks on our democracy from happening in the future, a price must be paid. And it better be a big one. And it better apply not only to those who broke into the Capitol building or carried weapons, or plotted to take hostages and kill Pence, Pelosi, and Schumer or killed others there. It better include Trump himself and any of his henchmen whose crimes can be proved. The actions the House is taking are a good beginning. But there are those, some with a good will, who even now are talking of how the nation is divided, how we need to listen to each other and find common ground. After this open, physical attack on democracy, that approach is appeasement ever as much as Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler. You can’t reason with people who refuse to honestly reason with you. They will only perceive your overture as a weakness they can exploit to their advantage. You can’t reason with a mob. If you try, it will be a very short one-way conversation. And you don’t listen to those trying to launch a fascist coup. You STOP them. To stop them, we must cease being conciliatory. The Justice Department absolutely must investigate and prosecute every leader in Trump’s Administration who has committed a crime during the last four years. We can’t successfully move forward as President-elect Biden longs to do if we don’t deal strongly with the crimes President Trump, his cronies and his mobs have committed. In the past, we’ve always been persuaded by the enablers of criminals to just move on, move forward to work together, to find common ground—usually their ground. When Nixon attempted his theft of democracy, he was pardoned without even a trial, and we just moved on, letting him rejoin society with a rehabilitated reputation. When the Republican majority in Bill Clinton’s Congress obstructed his agenda, we found common ground by moving the country to the right. When George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove used lies to invade Iraq, extra-judicially detained people, and claimed, “We make our own reality,” we did not seriously challenge them. And when Dick Cheney openly embraced the concept of the unitary executive theory (according to David Gergen’s interpretation: the view that Congress works for the President’s Executive Branch, not co-equally with it), Congress did not resist. These and other appeasements are how we got where we are today, on the precipice of dictatorship. When we just move on, we let the fascists and white supremacists retreat under their rocks and bide their time until it is safe to come out and try again. If we do that, I guarantee there will be a next time. And soon. Jessie Seigel is a fiction writer, an associate editor at the Potomac Review, a reviewer for The Washington Independent Review of Books, and a dabbler in political cartoons at Daily Kos. She has twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her work. But, Seigel also had a long career as a government attorney, in which she honed her analytic skills. Of this double career, Seigel would say, “I guess my right and left brains are well balanced.” More on and from Seigel can be found at The Adventurous Writer, https://www.jessieseigel.com.

By Alan Resnick I’m reaching out for at least nine adult volunteers to help me sit shiva, the Jewish weeklong formal mourning period, for the death of the souls of Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley.They are the two Republican senators most closely associated with baselessly challenging the Electoral College votes won by President-elect Joe Biden in several key states. As this will be a nonsectarian service, this invitation is extended to both males and females of any religion. Cruz and Hawley are two of our country’s highest ranking elected officials, so the loss of their souls is significant, especially given their Ivy League law degrees and clerkships with Supreme Court chief justices. And even before the events of January 6, neither appeared to be well liked by their peers, so finding 10 members of Congress to participate in anything that concerns the duo is doubtful. As Al Franken, former U.S. Senator from Minnesota wrote in his 2017 book, Al Franken, Giant of the Senate: “I like Ted Cruz more than most of my colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz.” The burden therefore falls on us. While the souls of both Cruz and Hawley were pronounced dead on January 7, the day after the insurrection at the Capitol Building, the circumstances surrounding their demises were quite different. The death of Cruz’ soul was a lengthy and tortured process, as symptoms first began to present themselves to the nation back on February 1, 2016, when he was declared the winner of the Iowa Republican caucus. In a precursor of things to come, two days after the caucus, fellow candidate Donald Trump tweeted: “Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.” Trump accused Cruz and his aides and allies of telling Iowa voters that Ben Carson was quitting the race so he could steal Carson’s votes. Full of righteous indignation, Mr. Cruz fired back at Trump the same day at a press conference: “What Donald does, when he loses, is he blames everybody else,” Mr. Cruz added. “It’s never Donald’s fault.” Yet on February 5, The New York Times reported the Cruz campaign acknowledged that it had made a coordinated effort to spread the story that Carson was dropping out. Of course, the Cruz crew brushed away their actions as “an honest mistake.” A 2016 Trump tweet compared Heidi Cruz’s looks with Melania Trump’s Cruz’ moral and ethical antigens battled over the next four months against the putrefaction that had started to consume his soul. They fought off an unflattering side-by-side picture and accompanying caption of Cruz’ wife, Heidi, and Melania that Trump retweeted on March 23, 2016, responding to an ad that included a photo of Melania posing nude, commissioned by a super PAC unaffiliated with the Cruz campaign. Cruz fended off another significant blow to his immune system May 3, the day prior to the Indiana primary. During an interview on Fox News, Trump insinuated that Cruz’ father, Rafael, may have played some role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy: “I mean what was he doing–what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, shortly before the shooting? It’s horrible.” This intimation was based on an article that had appeared in the National Enquirer, claiming to have definitive photographic evidence that Cruz’ father was with Oswald in 1963 distributing leaflets in Louisiana supporting Fidel Castro.. The attacks on his family, Trump’s questioning whether he could even run for President due to being born in Canada, and candidate Trump’s continual references to him as “Lyin Ted” throughout the primaries all seemed to put Cruz’s soul on the road to recovery. He used Trump’s name just once during his speech at the Republican Convention, only when congratulating him at the outset on winning the nomination. Some delegates began to boo as it became clear that no endorsement was forthcoming. But Cruz was not intimidated, even when Trump suddenly appeared in the arena flashing a thumbs-up gesture to the crowd as Cruz was wrapping up. Cruz concluded by saying: “Don’t stay home in November. Stand and speak and vote your conscience.” CNN reported that Mrs. Cruz needed to be escorted from the arena by security after she was heckled by some angry convention attendees. The next day, Cruz defended his convention speech in the face of questioning from the Texas delegation attending the convention: “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father.” It appeared that Cruz’ ethical and moral slump had stopped. But on September 23, the decay reappeared with vengeance. In a Facebook post, three days before the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Trump, Cruz announced that he was endorsing the man who trashed his wife and father and called him a liar: “After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.” Since Trump’s inauguration, the rot has only advanced. Cruz has been one of the President’s most vocal supporters. The toll Cruz’s scheming had taken on his soul was on full display on January 6, when he spoke at the Capitol against certification of the Electoral College results from Arizona. The Texas senator spoke about the need to give Americans confidence in the election and the need for transparency, never mentioning that he was one of the primary promoters of the voter fraud hoax. He opined about the unfairness of disenfranchising 75 million voters, conveniently omitting that he was scheming to disenfranchise the 80 million citizens who had voted for the President-elect Biden. And this all happened before the riot at the Capitol. After the insurrection had been quelled and Congress had gone back to conducting the people’s business, some Republican senators were so shaken and outraged by the day’s events that they demonstrated the decency to change their minds about voting against decertification. But not Ted Cruz. He was still all in. Ted Cruz’ soul was officially pronounced dead on January 7, 2021, the day after the Capitol Building insurrection. He denied any responsibility for the mutiny on the previous day, instead directing the blame toward Trump and the rioters during an interview at an NBC affiliate in Dallas: “Look, I think he plainly bears some responsibility. At the end of the day, criminals are responsible for their own conduct and the terrorists who conducted that attack, they bear the responsibility. But I think his angry rhetoric was reckless, and I think it was harmful.” Josh Hawley’s soul expired much more quickly, hurried along by a terminal case of overweening ambition. At 41, Hawley, elected in 2018, is the youngest sitting senator and thought by some to be a possible 2024 Republican presidential candidate. Unlike Cruz, who had been on the public’s radar screen for quite some time, it’s doubtful that many people outside of his home state of Missouri knew of him or his lapses in principles until they appeared in full view on December 31, 2020. That’s when The Washington Post reported that Hawley was the first senator to announce that he would object when Congress convened the following week to certify the Electoral College vote, proclaiming: “At the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress so far has failed to act.” Hawley took this stance even though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had discouraged his members from challenging the process, knowing that it was doomed to fail and would only force each Republican senator to publicly support or denounce the psychopath in the Oval Office.. Hawley took this stance even though Republican Chris Krebs, the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, announced on November 12 that the election was the most secure in history. (Not surprisingly, Trump fired Krebs via tweet a week later.) On the morning of the Capitol Building riots, Hawley offered a clenched-fist salute of support to the insurrectionists as he walked by them on the way to the certification vote. His gesture was memorialized in a photograph that quickly went viral. Like Cruz, Hawley was one of the few senators who objected to both the Arizona and Pennsylvania certifications. And also like Cruz, Hawley accepted no responsibility for the insurgency, even though former Missouri Senator John Danforth, Hawley’s most influential mentor, told the Kansas City Star that Hawley was responsible for the insurrection and supporting him was “the biggest mistake I’ve ever made in my life.” Hawley rebutted Danforth in a statement: “I will never apologize for giving voice to the millions of Missourians and Americans who have concerns about the integrity of our elections. That’s my job, and I will keep doing it.” Now that their souls have died, discussions have turned toward what to do with their morally and ethically depleted bodies. The editorial boards of major newspapers in both men’s home states have demanded their resignations. By January 11, four Senate Democrats, Chris Coons of Delaware, Patty Murray of Washington State, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio had called for Cruz and Hawley to resign or be expelled. Ben Sasse, the Republican Senator from Nebraska, has not called for their resignations but told NPR, “Senator Hawley was doing something that was really dumbass.” It is customary during the shiva period to bring food into the house of the deceased. But given the events of January 6, it is unlikely that a casserole or a dish to pass would be accepted at the People’s House. My people tend to be prefer sending something catered to something homemade, but, again, the likelihood of a mixed nut tray or edible arrangement fruit basket getting through security is remote right now. So here’s one more idea if you would like to perform a mitzvah, or good deed, to commemorate the loss of the souls of Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. Make a donation to the charity of your choosing. And indicate on the donation form that you are making the contribution in memory of the soul of Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley. Request that the charity send an acknowledgement to the office of either gentleman at the Capitol Building. Chances are good that at least one lower-tier staff member will read it. And maybe they’ll even pass it along to Cruz or Hawley. Better yet if you have the resources, make two donations, one for each of these profiles in cynicism. Alan Resnick is an industrial psychologist with over 40 years of professional experience. He and his wife are sheltering at home in Farmington Hills, Michigan. He is passing the time by cooking, exercising, catching up on friends’ recommendations of must-see TV and writing.

A Criminal Defense Lawyer and Former Prosecutor Weighs the Potential Case Against the President By Russell Bikoff / Washington, D.C. The big question is what becomes of Donald Trump now? The intentions of U.S. prosecutors in the District of Columbia are not clear. The acting United States Attorney announced that people at all levels will be investigated, but a day or two later his chief deputy said the opposite. In any event, the U.S. attorney will be replaced by the new Administration, but that timing is unknown. Any decisions by the District of Columbia’s U.S. attorney (USAO- D. C.) will be made in coordination with the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department and under the ultimate supervision and direction of the new Attorney General and the new deputy Attorney General, presumably Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco, respectively, after their Senate confirmations. In the case of Donald Trump's potential criminal exposure, only two statutes in Title 18 (the criminal part) of the U.S. code seem to apply: Section 2383 governing rebellion or insurrection and section 2384 on seditious conspiracy. Neither one has ever been applied in a situation like this, because never has a President committed arguably criminal acts like this during his term of office. Since this is a novel question, there would be difficulties using these statutes, but perhaps not insurmountable ones. We would expect the U.S. Supreme Court to have the last word on whatever prosecution is attempted or concludes with a conviction of Mr. Trump. He will certainly have a favorable forum there since he appointed fully one-third of the justices. The overarching question is whether these three justices would face pressure to recuse themselves and whether they would do so, which is up to each one individually. Such a Supreme Court case might be of academic interest (except for Donald Trump), because by the time the case is decided by the Supreme Court, Trump would be long gone from the presidency. If a conviction for rebellion or insurrection stands, it is important to note that one public benefit is that Mr. Trump would be forever barred from holding any U.S. office, including the presidency. Thus, this is a different route from impeachment to reach the same result: preventing Trump from running in 2024 or beyond and again serving as President. To be convicted of rebellion/insurrection, a jury would need to find beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements defining that crime were satisfied. Appeals courts would also need to find after conviction that for each element, as they interpret it, the facts at trial are sufficient to sustain a finding of guilty by the jury. Let us look briefly at these laws. The first law, on rebellion and insurrection, requires (as with all criminal laws) that there be an act. The acts are defined as “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in” “any rebellion or insurrection” “against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof” “or gives aid or comfort thereto.” Rebellion and insurrection need to be defined, so the prosecutors and courts would look to the case law. It is interesting that the statute does not lay out any state of mind requirement, normally another element of any criminal statute. Thus, the courts would define a state of mind requirement by reading one into the statute, as they usually do when that element is left unstated in the statute. The strictest requirement would be that the defendant “intended” to engage in the proscribed acts. This is usually known as “specific intent.” Or, a looser mental state could be used, that the defendant “knowingly” engaged in the above conduct or that he “knew or should have known,” which is more of a negligence standard. This would cover a person who argues he did not know he was inciting or assisting a rebellion or insurrection. He could still be held liable if he should have known; that is, if a reasonable person in these circumstances would have known he was inciting or assisting an insurrection or rebellion. Punishment upon conviction is up to 10 years in prison plus a fine and disqualification from federal office. The second statue is seditious conspiracy, and to be convicted of that a person must once again act. The criminal act is defined as two or more persons conspiring, which merely means agreeing, to overthrow the U.S. government or make war against the U.S. government or “ by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” It seems that this last requirement would be satisfied in Trump's case by the mob’s success in preventing, hindering, and delaying the important ceremonial and constitutional duty of the Congress in certifying the results of the presidential election. Once again there is no (criminal) state of mind that is specified, so the courts would import one into the statute. It is likely to be either “knowing” or “know or should have known,” that he entered into an agreement with others (to overthrow the government or, in this case, to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the U.S.), which is once more the negligence standard. The punishment upon conviction is up to 20 years in prison plus a fine. Prosecutors if inclined could proceed in the grand jury on either or both statutes and try to obtain an indictment against Mr. Trump. They would have a choice of how broadly to define the rebellion or insurrection in the first statute and a conspiracy in the second statute. If they did so narrowly, they might focus only on Trump's words and conduct in the one or more weeks leading up to the events of January 6, and specifically his words at the rally at the Ellipse. These statutes do not punish speech but punish verbal conduct that threatens a clear and present danger, in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s formulation, of causing events that the government is empowered to prohibit, such as an attack by a mob on the U.S. Capitol. Thus, there is unlikely to be a successful defense that everything the President said was protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, a jury must be able to draw a reasonable inference that Trump’s words (either on January 6 or in earlier Tweets and other messages from him) were a call to his followers to “stop the steal” by stopping the Congressional count by illegal means. It may be that the test of words Trump spoke is to visualize the effect on the “hearers” of Mr. Trump's words. Given the relationship and course of conduct between Trump and the mob of January 6, how would a “reasonable Trump supporter” (some would say this is an oxymoron) have understood Trump's words, their meaning and message? The issue for prosecutors and the grand jury under the first statute thus might be summarized: Did Donald Trump know or should he have known that his words would “incite or set on foot or assist” a rebellion or insurrection against the authority or law of the U.S. in the form of an assault by a mob on the U.S. Capitol? Under the second statute the issue might be summarized as, did Donald Trump knowingly agree (or should he have known he was agreeing) with two or more persons in the crowd or among his followers to “by force prevent, hinder, or delay” the execution of any law of the United States, namely, the counting of electoral votes by the U.S. House and Senate and their certification of the winner of the November 2020 presidential election? It is a basic feature of conspiracy law that an illegal agreement may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Courts have noted through the years that those planning with others to commit crimes normally do not leave behind written records of their agreements. Also, under the Pinkerton rule (from an old Supreme Court case), each member of the conspiracy may be held liable for other crimes committed by members of the conspiracy in furtherance of that conspiracy and during its existence. One condition for this “vicarious liability” is that the members who did not commit the crime, for example, striking a Capitol police officer in the head, leading to his death, must nevertheless possess the mental state element required by that offense. In other words, if government is going to charge ringleaders of the riot or even Trump with murder or manslaughter in the death of the officer, the prosecutors must prove that those ringleaders intended for a member of the conspiracy to cause death or serious bodily injury to that officer. The agreement must have an objective that is itself illegal or criminal. Here, there arguably is probable cause to believe that the objective was to illegally stop the certification of Biden's electoral vote victory. Finally, a conspiracy that constitutes a crime, not just an abstract agreement to do something illegal, must contain at least one “overt act.” This is any action by any one of the parties to the agreement that brings closer the accomplishment of the objective of the agreement. Here, marching to the Capitol or breaking into the Capitol building might be an overt act, or many of them. The prosecutors also have the choice of a wider focus in framing the counts of an indictment involving these two federal statutes. For example, they might look at all of Donald Trump's conduct before and after the election that might be evidence of a strategy to annul the results of the election if he lost, and to find illegal or extra-legal means to certify the actual loser (Trump) of the election as the officially designated winner. Seen in this light, the events of January 6 would be just one more tactic, though an admittedly historic and infamous one, taken in an evolving strategy to nullify the election and prevent the certification and ultimately the inauguration of Joseph Biden as President. The actual satisfaction of the elements of the statute on waging rebellion or insurrection and the other statute on seditious conspiracy would probably be the same as with a narrower focus. But framing it in larger terms would allow prosecutors to tell a big story of political intrigue and treachery to the jury and to the American public. This would allow evidence of bogus lawsuits and, critically, pressure brought to bear on multiple officials in Georgia, on state legislators from Michigan and Pennsylvania, and even on Trump's unfortunate Vice President, Mike Pence. There are other miscellaneous issues to mention in passing. One question may be the effect of a self-pardon. This would ultimately be up to the Supreme Court, although many legal scholars and judges believe that such a pardon would not be legally effective. It is hard to see how the principal officer of the federal government can be the judge and jury of his own case, if we still claim to be a government of laws, not men. In any event, a self-pardon would not affect an impeachment process by the Congress. One might also ask what Donald Trump’s defenses would be if he were indicted on either or both federal statutes under discussion. One could expect that he would move to dismiss the several counts of the indictment on various grounds. If he got to trial and the government's case survived a motion to dismiss, which is the usual occurrence, Trump would be permitted to raise his defense case. He would certainly focus on the ambiguity, on their face, of the words he spoke at the Ellipse, and try to rebut the prosecutors’ arguments that, given the relationship between him and his followers, and the context of the counting in Congress that day, they all understood his meaning, even if his words were somewhat Delphic. We could expect his defense to focus on his state of mind, and (as commentator Hugh Hewitt has written) Trump would testify and his lawyers would argue that he had no idea that the mob would break into the Capitol. Rather, he only foresaw them marching near the Capitol and possibly surrounding it at a distance behind barricades and chanting for members of Congress to stop the certification. This defense may be hard to square with the President’s reported behavior while watching the horrific scene unfold on television. This reportedly involved excitement at seeing the Capitol breeched, coupled with frantic phone calls to several Senators to urge them to postpone the certification of the vote at least until Thursday, the following evening. Also, it will be hard for Trump to argue that his speech sending the crowd down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol was less than reckless; as we have seen, negligence (a less culpable mental state than reckless) in his words might be enough under these statutes, if Trump “should have known” that his words would incite an insurrection or seal a conspiracy to delay or hinder the vote certification by Congress. In any event, such testimony by Trump and legal argument would be a matter of credibility and the jury is free to reject this defense. We may also wonder what legal exposure Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump, Jr., who both also spoke to the crowd at the Ellipse on January 6, may face. It depends on whether any of the words they used can reasonably be viewed as an incitement to use illegal force and violence at the Capitol. Are Trump's allies inside the halls of Congress during the count of electoral votes also in legal jeopardy? After all, one might say that they were the inside cohort, allies of Trump seeking to replace Biden with Trump as the Congressionally certified electoral vote winner of the election, while the mob outside was attempting to reach the same result. However, the senators and congressmen are protected by a Constitutional privilege and they cannot be questioned for whatever they do or say on the floor of either House of Congress. One can argue, however, that they should pay a political price for abusing and manipulating the Constitution and a federal statute, the Electoral Count Act of 1887, to arrogate to Congress the power of selecting the president and vice president, a power that Congress was not explicitly given and has never exercised. To my knowledge, the Speech and Debate clause does not prevent each house of Congress from censuring or disciplining members like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz in the Senate and minority leader Kevin McCarthy in the House, with sanctions up to and including expulsion. There is also the matter of the actual rioters, especially those who entered the Capitol building. The law makes no distinction between those who went into the building and those who stayed elsewhere on the Capitol grounds. Rioters both indoors and outdoors are at legal risk for crimes under the D.C. Code in D.C. Superior Court, the local court, as well as under the D.C. Code and the federal criminal (U.S.) code in U.S. District Court. For example, crimes prosecuted in D.C. Superior Court against the January 6 rioters include misdemeanors, such as unlawful entry, destruction of property, assault, threats, and rioting. Crimes specific to unlawful conduct in Congress are also in this category, including disorderly conduct, parading and demonstrating, entering or remaining on the floor of either House or the galleries, and “engaging in any act of physical violence” on the Capitol grounds or within any Capitol building. By contrast, there are a set of specific crimes under the D.C. code that can only be prosecuted in U.S. District Court and as felonies. Section 10-503.16 of the D.C. Code makes it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, to carry or use in the buildings or grounds of Congress a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosives, or incendiary devices. Notably, somebody who “knowingly, with force and violence,” enters onto the floor of either house of Congress, is also subject to felony conviction with up to five years imprisonment. It is an open question whether felony riot on the Capitol grounds and in the buildings (requiring that a person suffer serious bodily harm or there be property damage beyond $5,000, notably two conditions satisfied in the January 6 riot) under the D.C. Code would be prosecuted in Superior Court or must be in U.S. District Court only. The penalty for felony riot is a maximum of 10 years prison and a fine. The prospect of Donald Trump facing a jury of his peers in the District of Columbia might be delicious to contemplate for many people. There is a good chance that the judge would be female, as would some or all the prosecutors. The jury, of course, could have among its 12 members and two alternates many African-Americans, perhaps half or more of its members. While this might be a nightmare for Trump, it could be a dream come true for many other people, depending on how you feel about accountability and the rule of law, as well as irony. Deciding whether to bring a criminal case will be a challenging decision for the Biden Administration, and particularly its new Attorney General. Any decision will have political costs and perhaps limited benefits. However, a strong argument can be made that when a Chief Executive plays a crucial role in sending a mob to assault the legislature, a co-equal branch of the national government, the criminal law should be used to instruct the public and posterity that no person stands above the law, even the President of the United States. The consequences of sending the opposite message may sound the death knell of a democratic republic. Russell Bikoff has been a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and a federal official in the foreign affairs community and the U.S. Department of Justice. For the past 15 years, he has practiced law in Washington, D.C., focusing on criminal defense, civil litigation, and other civil matters.

By Tobye S. Stein Move over, Rudy! You’re not the only legal eagle in the President’s orbit. Tiffany Trump, the President’s other fair-haired daughter, graduated from Georgetown University Law Center last year. Rather than studying for the bar in Washington, D.C. or New York, though, Tiffany put taking the exam on hold to help with her father’s 2020 campaign for president. But now that Daddy is out of a job, Tiffany isn’t certain what her plans are. I guess she’s become a lot more like her father than originally thought. Neither has plans for the immediate future. Donald really could use a lawyer in the family since so many law firms will no longer represent him. Bill Barr took a hike and Mr. Giuliani isn’t doing a great job. Maybe Tiffany better study up and take that bar exam fast. During Dad’s first run for president, we saw very little of Tiffany, his daughter from his marriage (his second) to Marla Maples. Tiffany was raised by her actress mother in California. She had little contact with Daddy, who was busy looking for President Obama’s birth certificate and running a myriad of businesses into bankruptcy. Tiffany didn’t go into Dad’s businesses like her half siblings, Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka. In 2011, when she was 17, Tiffany released “Like a Bird” and performed the track on Oprah Winfrey’s “Where Are They Now?" special. The Second Daughter-to-Be confided to Oprah: “I love music. It's always been a big passion for me.” Then, in 2015, a year before her reality-TV-star father won his race for the White House, Tiffany and her model-and-screen-star mother took part in a “confessional art project” where they appeared to pose nude. Tiffany told Style magazine the black-and-white video piece was about living in the moment and trying not to judge the physical. Obviously, Daddy still doesn’t seem to have much influence on Tiffany at this point in time, since Daddy always focuses on the physical when it comes to women. After picking up an undergraduate degree at the University of Pennsylvania, Tiffany attended law school at Georgetown. During her time there, she was able to spend a little more time with Daddy. Although she’s said to be closer with her older half-siblings now, Dad did confirm on Howard Stern’s radio show a few years ago that Don Jr. and Ivanka tried to cut Tiff out of any future inheritance. I guess the older two learned that trick from Dad, who did his best to cheat his brother Fred’s children out of any Trump family inheritance. (Just ask his tape-recorder-toting niece, Mary Trump.) While campaigning for dear old Dad, Tiffany hit a few battleground states. Her assignment was to attract young female voters (apparently Ivanka is getting too long-in-the-tooth for these assignments) and members of the LGBTQ community. In typical Trump fashion, this backfired when they excluded transgender persons from the rally. It appears Tiffany has turned herself into a True Trump Child. She’s willing to do anything just to get Dad’s approval. She would have been better served with a singing career. Tobye S. Stein retired as Chief Human Resources Officer from a California-based financial services organization. She once landed a job by replying to the age old question, “Why should I hire you instead of the other two candidates” by simply stating “I’m funnier than most people.” It worked.

By Marieke Slovin Lewis / Bailleul, France I have always been a sensitive person. I experience the world without any filters or defenses. When I was little and my parents took me to watch E.T., I had a complete meltdown after the scene where E.T. became sick and turned a pale white. As we were leaving the movie, I apparently told my parents never to take me to another movie like E.T. ever again. I struggle over events, real and fictional, and it takes me a long time to soothe my sensitive system after something riles me up. Because I feel things so acutely but also need and want to live in the world (aka, I am not a hermit or monk living in a cave or monastery), I have spent a lot of time cultivating healthy ways to reduce the toll on my nervous system. One method for keeping my nervous system in balance is to limit my media intake. This means that I read the news first thing in the morning so I have the rest of the day to process it. I do not read the news or go to any social media sites before bed, because the result would be a fitful night of tossing and turning. I began this practice shortly after the morning my husband and I woke up in Brussels in November 2016 to the shocking and devastating news that Donald Trump had been elected president. We went to bed with Hillary Clinton in the lead and woke up to a very different world. The subsequent bombardment of communications and alarm over each new act on the part of this megalomaniac has been simply too much for my system. Sometimes, I forget my self-imposed rule and check my Facebook account on my phone before bed. When I exclaim in alarm over a person setting fire to a veterinary clinic, my husband will remind me to turn off my phone. My husband and I are from the United States, and another protection practice I have developed is to avoid texting with friends and family back home in the hour or so leading up to bedtime. Since my husband and I moved to Belgium from Arizona in the fall of 2016, I have kept my phone on silent because we have so many friends and family members living in different time zones. I do my best to also remember not to text people in the middle of the night, but it can get tricky, particularly with my uncle who lives in Hawaii, which is a 12-hour time difference. My intention to greatly reduce the amount of time I spend doomscrolling and texting before became even more of a lifeline over the past pandemic year. The seemingly unending barrage of stresses and triggers from news outlets, social media sites, internet memes, and late-night comedy sketches, combined with the texts from friends and family, communicating shock and horror, were enough to set my system on high alert. Texting about Trump’s latest affront or the worsening pandemic could keep me up for hours. I would also try to avoid reading the text messages that appeared on my phone over the course of the night, which I would see each time I woke up and looked at my phone to check the time. One benefit of living overseas is that I am far away from the events happening in my home country, where Trump drama and the rippling effect of racism, anti-Semitism, and bigotry that follows in its wake is local news. While I engage in a certain amount of communication over the rising tide of nuclear waste that has been bubbling up since Trump took office, I can also practice a certain amount of denial. After the initial sweep of texts with my expat U.S. American friends and the people I have met in Belgium and now France, where my husband and I moved this past fall, I can pretend that the United States is not experiencing an increasing divide from which it may never recover. I can close my eyes and not see it, which means it must not be real. This denial became more difficult over the course of 2020, which began with impeachment trials and ended with Trump’s continued refusal to accept election results proclaiming Biden as the next president. Since moving just across the Belgian border into northern France, my husband and I have regular debates about returning to the U.S. worthy of The Clash song, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” After the seemingly never-ending, infinitely grueling election week, during which time I felt like I aged at least 20 years in under seven days, we felt a tenuous ray of hope was shining on our possible path of going back. Finally, a Democrat would take the presidential seat. Of course, the challenge with U.S. politics—at least, one of myriad challenges—is that everything feels like that ray of hope, so very tenuous. Every two years, the majority in the House and Senate can change. Every four years, the ruling party for the presidency. The word ruling is perhaps too delicate of a metaphor with the increasingly despotic tendencies of the current body inhabiting the Oval Office. The question, “Too soon?” comes to mind. Often when we are out and about, running errands in our small town in northern France, we find ourselves engaged in dialogue with local merchants. Just Friday morning, we chatted with a staff person at the boulangerie (French for bakery), talking about how the current president is hands-down the worst of any. We then laughed because it has seemed that in my lifetime each previous Republican president has taken that place. I was living in Brittany in northwest France when George W. Bush was reelected, and people regularly asked me how Americans could vote for such a man. Moving to Brussels, Belgium four years ago just before the 2016 presidential election, I found myself in a disturbingly similar situation. It is not just that the current president is worse than any previous Republican president. It is that every single thing he does seems like the epitome of unpresidential, criminal behavior. Each new act outpaces the one before it, surpassing the shock effect and climbing to ever higher levels of insanity and inanity. It’s almost as though the president is in competition with himself, trying to beat his highest score in a post-apocalyptic, political video game. All of my best efforts at self-soothing for a restful night’s sleep went to hell when Trump incited a mob of zealous supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol this past Wednesday. My husband and I were quietly reading when a text came in from my dad that read: “Glad that you are in France today! Crazy times here.” Nonplussed, I responded, “What's happening? The election?” I knew this was the day that election results were being validated for each state, but I just assumed this would happen as it normally did. I assumed wrong. Normal has no place in any sentence describing the Trump presidency. My dad’s swift response sent shock waves of anxiety and nausea through my body: “Protesters have invaded the Capitol Building.” “What?!?! Trump supporters?” “Yes. They have smashed windows, tear gas, etc.” “Holy hell!!!!!!!” My husband then reminded me to stop texting and to absolutely not start looking at news headlines. I dutifully obeyed, doing my best to breathe my nervous system into submission in order to be able to fall asleep. The texts my dad sent later that night, and which I received first thing in the morning, did not instill confidence in democracy nor did they inspire me to want to return to the United States. Over the following days, I did my best to maintain an even keel through video check-ins with family in the United States, texting with friends and family in Europe and North America, and updates from news and social media outlets. I was shocked all over again by the images of protesters in the mob that broke into the Capitol, decked out in outrageous attire, including t-shirts with the acronym 6MWE (6 Million Wasn’t Enough) printed in bold yellow lettering. I had not heard of this movement, which is meant to communicate that the Holocaust did not murder enough Jews and so the wearer of the t-shirt would like to continue the cleansing. I used to think that nothing from Trump and his cadre of crazies could shock me anymore, but this most recent event proved me wrong. My New York Times email digest Friday morning was not reassuring: “Your Friday Briefing—A wounded U.S. is in turmoil.” My text communications from friends included expressions of solidarity, shock, and sadness, along with vomiting and weeping. emojis. One friend sent a meme with an alarming photograph of a man with the U.S. flag painted on his face, no shirt, a flag in his hand, and a fur hat with a tail and horns on his head (not sure what kind of animal it was meant to be or if it was some kind of mythical creature to help Make America Great Again). The words beneath the photo read: “After today’s event, Mexico has decided to pay for the wall. And Canada wants one, too.” My husband and I regularly refer to life as “riding the wave,” but this recent surge of violence in the name of making American more white and racist was akin to sitting in front of an automated tennis-ball throwing machine where the tennis balls are aimed directly at your stomach. I practice yoga and do a fair number of push-ups, but my core is nowhere near solid enough to withstand such a constant bombardment. It is an incredible gift to be able to switch off the media and live in temporary denial of the current President’s existence, and yet my husband and I also have talked about feeling a simultaneous guilt over being so far from the front lines. We haven’t been there in the thick of it, experiencing the daily barrage from the media and the roller coaster of emotions that inevitably bubble up in the wake of each new shocking event. It’s like visiting a town after the tornado has already blown through. We carefully step around the wreckage, imagining the horrors people must have experienced as the storm raged through. Perhaps, there is also a feeling of survivor’s remorse, having spent the entirety of the Trump era safely ensconced in our northern European bubble. In France, we can soften each blow with endless pastries and baked goods. In most of the world, there are seasons for eating fruits and vegetables. In France, there are dessert seasons. January is the season of the Galette des Rois or “King Cake,” “commemorating the arrival of the Three Kings to the manger where Jesus was born.” Since I am Jewish, I am more interested in eating the delicious cake and in finding the “king” or “feve,” which is a treasure that is hidden inside the cake. It is traditionally a small porcelain figurine. The gustatory delight combined with the possibility of finding the hidden prize makes the overall experience quite enjoyable. Each cake comes with a paper crown for the prize finder to wear. We have been quite devoted in our searching for the best galette among the many boulangeries (French for bakery) in our town. So far, our favorite comes from the Maison Bril, which also has for the prize quite lovely little figurines that resemble the larger Russian nesting dolls. As the shock waves from the Trumpquake continue to reverberate around the world, at least I am in a corner with lots of pastries to help soothe the emotional toll of Trump on our psyches. We can drown our sorrows in butter and frangipane. Wherever you find yourself in the world, it is my greatest wish that you can find a way to self-soothe in such a strange, surreal, volatile time. Marieke Slovin Lewis is a writer, musician, composer, yoga teacher, and editor. She grew up in Massachusetts and holds a Ph.D. in Sustainability Education from Prescott College. Marieke is a wandering soul and has lived all over the world. She currently finds herself in a second lockdown in northeast France with her husband, Richard Lewis, three cats and a big white husky. Marieke strives to create balance in her life through long walks around the farm fields that surround her home; practicing yoga and meditation; singing and strumming on her ukulele or banging on her bodhran; and writing, writing, writing.