By Alan Resnick / Detroit Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the National Football League (NFL), is facing some rather uncomfortable questions these days. Two very public unsavory situations will require him to enforce the league’s Personal Conduct Policy, but while the situations are similar, the outcomes will likely be very different. In essence, the league’s conduct policy states, “Everyone who is part of the league must refrain from conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL.” This applies to owners, coaches, players, other team employees, game officials, and employees of the league office. One of the situations involves a player, the other an owner. The player is quarterback Deshaun Watson, who was traded to the Cleveland Browns this past March. While Watson was still a member of the Houston Texans, 24 civil lawsuits were filed against him by multiple massage therapists from the period of March 2020 to March 2021. The majority of the accusations involved lewd behaviors such as coercing therapists to touch him in a sexual manner, exposing himself, or moving his body in ways that forced masseuses to touch his genitals. Two of the 24 cases claimed sexual assault in the form of forced oral sex. Although there were a total of 10 criminal complaints against Watson, in March of this year two grand juries in Texas declined to charge him. Watson continues to deny any wrongdoing. Yet on June 21, The New York Times reported that he had reached settlements with 20 of the 24 women who filed sexual misconduct lawsuits against him. While there are no other pending legal charges against Watson, a Washington Post article dated June 17 reports that the NFL will argue that he should receive a significant suspension for violating the league’s conduct policy. While the length of the suspension is unclear, the article speculates that the NFL will argue that Watson should sit out one full season. In accordance with the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the NFL and the NFL Players’ Association (NFLPA), the league conducted an investigation of the case, then presented its findings and a recommendation to a disciplinary officer. That officer is Sue L. Robinson, the former U.S. District Judge who was jointly appointed by the NFL and the NFLPA. Robinson will evaluate the evidence and render a decision. (ESPN has reported that Robinson will meet with Watson this week.) A player can choose to appeal the disciplinary officer’s decision through the NFLPA. And who gets to hear and have full authority over the appeal? None other than Roger Goodell or his designee. Under the terms of the CBA, “The decision of the Commissioner or his designee, which may overturn, reduce, modify or increase the discipline previously issued, will be final and binding on all parties.” Goodell cannot, however, alter a decision to not discipline a player at all. His past actions against players who violated the conduct policy have been, at best, inconsistent. For example, in 2010, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was suspended for six games due to a sexual assault allegation by a 20-year-old college student, even though a prosecutor decided not to pursue charges. The suspension was later reduced to four games. In 2014, Ray Rice, a running back for the Baltimore Ravens, was suspended two games for punching his then-fiancé in an elevator. The entire gruesome incident was caught on video. Rice was subsequently suspended indefinitely, but he appealed and won. In 2018, Jameis Winston, a quarterback for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, was suspended for three games for touching an Uber driver “in an inappropriate and sexual manner without her consent.” Then there is quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who chose to kneel during the National Anthem on September 1, 2016, as a means of protesting the oppression of people of color in this country. Kaepernick was never suspended by Goodell. He was merely cut by his team, the San Francisco 49ers, and has not played in the NFL since then. Kaepernick subsequently filed a grievance against the NFL for collusion to keep him out of the league. It was settled in 2019 for an undisclosed amount of money. Now consider the case of Daniel Snyder. Snyder has owned the Washington Commanders (née Redskins, and Washington Football Team) since 1999. Reasonably knowledgeable fans agree that Snyder has driven a once-revered franchise into the ground with his constant meddling in front office decisions and his antagonistic relationship with the team’s supporters. (Snyder sued season ticket holders who were unable to pay during the recession in the late 2000s, despite his claim that there were over 200,000 people on the season ticket waiting list.) Snyder is now being accused of creating and fostering a toxic workplace culture within the organization. In July, 2020, the Washington Post published two exposés on the Commanders’ culture, with 15 women alleging sexual harassment while working for the team. They described being subjected to inappropriate comments about their bodies and clothing, as well as unwanted advances and improper touching by senior executives. It was also reported that there was a lewd video produced internally that pieced together outtakes from a cheerleader photo shoot. In a subsequent story, the Washington Post reported that in 2009, the Commanders had settled a sexual harassment claim brought against Snyder by a former employee,who received $1.6 million. (Snyder admitted no wrongdoing.) In August 2020, the NFL began an investigation. On July 1, 2021, the league released a brief summary of its findings, citing bullying, intimidation and a general lack of respect in a "highly unprofessional" workplace. The investigation also found that ownership and senior management paid little or no attention to complaints raised by female employees. Curiously, the team announced on June 29 that Tanya Snyder, Daniel’s wife, had been promoted to co-CEO and would be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the franchise while her husband focused his energies on getting a new stadium built. Interestingly enough, no formal report was issued by the NFL on the results of its investigation. The league said that it wanted to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the women who participated. Many of the women, however, have argued that Goodell and the NFL have simply chosen to bury the issue and protect Snyder. On June 22, Goodell testified at a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing. He told the Committee that he did not recall the NFL being informed of the 2009 incident that was reported in the Washington Post. But he did label the Commanders’ workplace culture as improper. “It is clear to me that the workplace in Washington was unprofessional and unacceptable in numerous respects: bullying, widespread disrespect toward colleagues, use of demeaning language, public embarrassment and harassment,” he said. Goodell was asked by committee member Rashida Talib (D-Mich) if he will “commit to doing more” and “recommend that Dan Snyder be removed as the team’s owner.” Goodell responded: “I don’t have the authority to remove him.” Under the NFL’s Bylaws and Constitution, the commissioner can determine discipline and establish policy. But he cannot, himself, force an owner to sell a team. For any issue in which the commissioner believes there should be greater discipline, he can refer it to the league’s executive committee and the other owners can vote on it. Approval of such a measure would require a three-quarters vote, or at least 24 of the 32 team owners. Snyder was asked to appear at the hearing but he refused, citing previous business commitments. Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y) then announced that she intended to issue a subpoena for Snyder to testify next week regarding the allegations of workplace misconduct and sexual harassment. “Mr. Snyder’s refusal to testify sends a clear signal that he is more concerned about protecting himself than coming clean to the American public,” Maloney said. “If the NFL is unwilling to hold Mr. Snyder accountable, then I am prepared to do so.” In a 2020 article for ESPN, Ian O’Connor wrote, “Per NFL policy, owners are supposed to be held to a higher standard than players. While this may be policy, Goodell’s discipline of Daniel Snyder and of other owners suggests otherwise.” It's worth noting that Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay was suspended six games in 2014 for driving while intoxicated. In 2018, outgoing Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson was fined $2.75 million for gross workplace misconduct. And in 2019, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft apologized for his arrest in a Florida prostitution sting but has avoided any sanctions. It’s very unlikely that a player would walk away scot-free in any similar situation. So why the apparent double standard for how Goodell disciplines players and owners? O’Connor has a rather simple answer: “It's easier to discipline your employees than your employers.” Goodell has been commissioner since 2006. By any financial metric, his tenure has been a remarkable success. The league’s total revenue has grown from $6.5 billion in 2006 to $18 billion in 2020. The average value of a team rose from $898 million to over $3.5 billion during the same time period. No doubt the owners of the 32 NFL franchises are thrilled by the return on their investment. And Goodell has made a fortune as well during his tenure. Forbes estimates that he has raked in $128 million during the last two fiscal years. So what is he likely to do with Watson and Snyder? As the old saying goes, the answer to all your questions is money. 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.

By Naomi Serviss / New York City The Supreme Court did WHAT to Roe v. Wade? Who are these antediluvians? What is wrong with those five, uber-conservative Supreme Court justices? How did those right-wing strict constructionists have the gonads to rule over women (and girls’) right to legal abortion? The breaking news enraged me hard. “What the actual fuck?” I said to my computer monitor. A wave of nausea beached me, dousing my usual good mood. We all know whose fault it is. He loaded the bench by confirming three far-right-leaning justices. America has lost its mind and morphed into Bizarro World. This historical (for the wrong reasons) decision is upending lives from sea to shining sea. Are you: An expectant incest victim? An eleven-year-old carrying a rapist’s seed? No abortion for you! As soon as Roe v. Wade was flipped on its head, the dominoes started falling. A number of states automatically outlawed abortion. Eleven states now ban or severely limit abortion; 11 others have laws not yet in effect that will do the same. The termination of federal protection–after nearly 50 years–will affect millions of American women and girls desperate for a legal abortion. An unapologetic, black-robed SWAT-team destroyed 50 years of progressive rights in a heartbeat. They were no doubt PO’d by having their draft opinion leaked. Vengeance was theirs. Gallup poll numbers revealed that 55 percent of American consider themselves pro-choice. Fifty years back, 1973’s Roe v. Wade was decided by a 7-2 vote. The tide had turned. A more intelligent time on the court. This current erosion of legal abortion rights did not spring fully grown, like Athena from Zeus’s head. A religious movement (among other Republican proselytizers) steered the right-wingnuts into Camp Crazytown. Took 50 years for their payoff. Minions are still chugging the cult-y Kool-Aid. Justices of our once-venerable Supreme Court have rejected what’s been constitutional for almost 50 years. “What ridiculous ban will the justices enforce next, birth control?” I asked myself facetiously. Good guess. Oh, and same-sex marriage may be just a dream some of us had. Friends were a mess this morning, texting disbelief and boiling anger. Emotionally shaken, a little edgy, with an anxiety attack on deck. We talked one another down. And said our goodbyes feeling hopeful. I’m grateful to live in a state where women’s legal abortion rights are a given. And I’m weary of witnessing history repeat itself, time after time. I’m holding tight to my anger. Naomi Serviss is a New York-based award-winning journalist whose work has been published in The New York Times, Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Highroads (AAA magazine), in-flight publications, spa and travel magazines and websites, including BroadwayWorld.com

By Emmy Serviss / Boston Yesterday I was attending an improv festival and laughing with friends I haven’t seen since 2019. Today I feel numb. Yesterday I was enjoying a drink with fellow improvisers and celebrating our wonderful community. Today I feel numb. Yesterday I felt optimistic that maybe the world was starting to heal again, and things would get back to “normal” soon. Today I feel numb. Yesterday I thought I was lucky to live in America. Land of the free, home of the brave and all the beautiful idealism of the American Dream. Now I know that it’s bullshit. America is only free to those who can buy it. Home to only those who were brave enough to be born into privilege. And I’m still waiting for that American Dream to trickle down to the middle and lower classes. After nearly 40 years of having the rights to my own body, those rights have been taken away while I was sleeping. They were taken away by people who swore under oath that they would not take away those rights. They were taken away by people who promised that their religious views would not influence their decisions in court. They lied. They lied. THEY LIED. I feel a rage deep in my blood that I can’t describe. I don’t understand how these people can hold some of the highest offices in our country, look us straight in the eye and make empty promises that they never had any intention of keeping. Apparently, the separation of church and state doesn’t mean the separation of the church from the state. It means that church and state, hand in hand, are kept separate from everyone else to hide their cozy arrangement. I feel wave upon wave of anger mixed with validation when I think of everyone in 2016 who said that we were overreacting at Trump’s election. This is why we were upset. This is why we panicked. This is why we cried helpless tears. We saw this coming a mile away. We weren’t overreacting. We weren’t being irrational. We weren’t being emotional. We saw the writing on the wall the minute Trump’s trio of justices were sworn in. I want to scream at everyone who didn’t listen to us in 2016. I want to cry in the arms of the women who in the 1970s, fought for us to have rights to our bodies. I want to beg forgiveness of the little girls watching all of this unfold, knowing they will have to fight the same fight as our mothers. But I can’t do any of that today. Because today I feel numb. Emmy Serviss is a Boston-based writer, actor and video editor. Once it is safe to return to live theater, you can find her performing with ComedySportz Boston and the sketch group SUZZY. When not on the stage, Emmy enjoys indulging in her new pandemic hobbies, laughing way too loudly and counting the days until Halloween.

June 27, 2022 Jeffrey D. Sachs | Other News - Voices Against the Tide The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a 30-year project of the American neoconservative movement. The Biden Administration is packed with the same neocons who championed the US wars of choice in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Syria (2011), Libya (2011), and who did so much to provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The neocon track record is one of unmitigated disaster, yet Biden has staffed his team with neocons. As a result, Biden is steering Ukraine, the US, and the European Union towards yet another geopolitical debacle. If Europe has any insight, it will separate itself from these US foreign policy debacles. The neocon movement emerged in the 1970s around a group of public intellectuals, several of whom were influenced by University of Chicago political scientist Leo Strauss and Yale University classicist Donald Kagan. Neocon leaders included Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan (son of Donald), Frederick Kagan (son of Donald), Victoria Nuland (wife of Robert), Elliott Abrams, and Kimberley Allen Kagan (wife of Frederick). The main message of the neocons is that the US must predominate in military power in every region of the world, and must confront rising regional powers that could someday challenge US global or regional dominance, most importantly Russia and China. For this purpose, US military force should be pre-positioned in hundreds of military bases around the world and the US should be prepared to lead wars of choice as necessary. The United Nations is to be used by the US only when useful for US purposes. This approach was spelled out first by Paul Wolfowitz in his draft Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) written for the Department of Defense in 2002. The draft called for extending the US-led security network to the Central and Eastern Europe despite the explicit promise by German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in 1990 that German unification would not be followed by NATO’s eastward enlargement. Wolfowitz also made the case for American wars of choice, defending America’s right to act independently, even alone, in response to crises of concern to the US. According to General Wesley Clark, Wolfowitz already made clear to Clark in May 1991 that the US would lead regime-change operations in Iraq, Syria, and other former Soviet allies. The neocons championed NATO enlargement to Ukraine even before that became official US policy under George W. Bush, Jr. in 2008. They viewed Ukraine’s NATO membership as key to US regional and global dominance. Robert Kagan spelled out the neocon case for NATO enlargement in April 2006: " [T]he Russians and Chinese see nothing natural in [the “color revolutions” of the former Soviet Union], only Western-backed coups designed to advance Western influence in strategically vital parts of the world. Are they so wrong? Might not the successful liberalization of Ukraine, urged and supported by the Western democracies, be but the prelude to the incorporation of that nation into NATO and the European Union -- in short, the expansion of Western liberal hegemony? " Kagan acknowledged the dire implication of NATO enlargement. He quotes one expert as saying, “the Kremlin is getting ready for the 'battle for Ukraine' in all seriousness." After the fall of the Soviet Union, both the US and Russia should have sought a neutral Ukraine, as a prudent buffer and safety valve. Instead, the neocons wanted US “hegemony” while the Russians took up the battle partly in defense and partly out of their own imperial pretentions as well. Shades of the Crimean War (1853-6), when Britain and France sought to weaken Russia in the Black Sea following Russian pressures on the Ottoman empire. Kagan penned the article as a private citizen while his wife Victoria Nuland was the US Ambassador to NATO under George W. Bush, Jr. Nuland has been the neocon operative par excellence. In addition to serving as Bush’s Ambassador to NATO, Nuland was Barack Obama’s Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs during 2013-17, where she participated in the overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, and now serves as Biden’s Undersecretary of State guiding US policy vis-à-vis the war in Ukraine. The neocon outlook is based on an overriding false premise: that the US military, financial, technological, and economic superiority enables it to dictate terms in all regions of the world. It is a position of both remarkable hubris and remarkable disdain of evidence. Since the 1950s, the US has been stymied or defeated in nearly every regional conflict in which it has participated. Yet in the “battle for Ukraine,” the neocons were ready to provoke a military confrontation with Russia by expanding NATO over Russia’s vehement objections because they fervently believe that Russia will be defeated by US financial sanctions and NATO weaponry. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a neocon think-tank led by Kimberley Allen Kagan (and backed by a who’s who of defense contractors such as General Dynamics and Raytheon), continues to promise a Ukrainian victory. Regarding Russia’s advances, the ISW offered a typical comment: “[R]egardless of which side holds the city [of Sievierodonetsk], the Russian offensive at the operational and strategic levels will probably have culminated, giving Ukraine the chance to restart its operational-level counteroffensives to push Russian forces back.” The facts on the ground, however, suggest otherwise. The West’s economic sanctions have had little adverse impact on Russia, while their “boomerang” effect on the rest of the world has been large. Moreover, the US capacity to resupply Ukraine with ammunition and weaponry is seriously hamstrung by America’s limited production capacity and broken supply chains. Russia’s industrial capacity of course dwarfs that of Ukraine’s. Russia’s GDP was roughly 10X that of Ukraine before war, and Ukraine has now lost much of its industrial capacity in the war. The most likely outcome of the current fighting is that Russia will conquer a large swath of Ukraine, perhaps leaving Ukraine landlocked or nearly so. Frustration will rise in Europe and the US with the military losses and the stagflationary consequences of war and sanctions. The knock-on effects could be devastating, if a right-wing demagogue in the US rises to power (or in the case of Trump, returns to power) promising to restore America’s faded military glory through dangerous escalation. Instead of risking this disaster, the real solution is to end the neocon fantasies of the past 30 years and for Ukraine and Russia to return to the negotiating table, with NATO committing to end its commitment to the eastward enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia in return for a viable peace that respects and protects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. https://www.other-news.info/ukraine-is-the-latest-neocon-disaster/ Jeffrey D. Sachs is a Professor at Columbia University, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres.

A Poem by Dr. Barry Lubetkin / New York City I lived through Vietnam and did not weep when my lottery number was called. I lived through Nixon’s Watergate and did not weep when the criminal was pardoned and escaped steel bars and an orange shirt. I did not weep when the Towers came down and I breathed in human remains, volunteering near the pile. Today I wept. I wept for a profoundly divided America. An America that I love. I wept for a Supreme Court gone mad with political power, demeaning women who for 50 years believed that they owned their own bodies. I wept for a future when angry young men and women will solve sidewalk arguments with pistols strapped to their hips. I wept for a government populated by sociopaths and cowards, who would grind their sacred oaths into the dirt of our Capitol. I wept for a brewing civil war and for those who will foment and welcome one. My sadness has exhausted me, my anger has depleted me, and in the end, I wept for myself. Barry Lubetkin, Ph.D. is the co-director and co-founder of the Institute for Behavior Therapy in New York City. The Institute for Behavior Therapy is the oldest private cognitive behavior center in the United States.

The Insider: Hello Stephani. Thanks for agreeing to talk by text with The Insider on such an historic day. Stephani: My pleasure. Thank you. The Insider: Which city do you live in? Stephani: Minneapolis, Minn. The Insider: What kind of abortion-related work have you done? Stephani: Quite varied. For the last 8-9 years I’ve been a security escort at Planned Parenthood, a patient support provider for patients getting abortions and I’m also on the board of our local Planned Parenthood affiliate. The Insider: What is your reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision today? Stephani: While it was expected, it is still gut-wrenching. The Insider: May I ask you how old you are? Stephani: 63 The Insider: So basically, Roe v. Wade has been the law your whole life. Stephani: Essentially. It became the law of the land when I was in high school. The Insider: What do you remember from then? Stephani: I remember trying to get a sex-ed class into our school. It drew a huge crowd of parents to a meeting because they opposed the idea. Also, a counselor, who remained a friend of mine, later told me of getting a call after school hours from a student who had an illegal abortion and was having problems. He always wondered what would have happened to her had he not answered. Instead he was able to call 911 and get her help. Scary stuff! The Insider: During your time at Planned Parenthood, have you ever heard women who lived before Roe talk about it? Stephani: Absolutely. Horrific stories The Insider: Can you please share an example or two of those? Stephani: Botched procedures, excessive bleeding, fear of infection…. The Insider: I think that many young women now can’t imagine life without legal abortion. Stephani: Absolutely–most people can’t fathom life without legal abortion! No one could have imagined this actually happening! The Insider: What was your personal motivation for getting involved with Planned Parenthood? Stephani: My dad was on the board of the Omaha Planned Parenthood. He took me to their office one night to pick up material and said, “this is a place you should know about.” Both my parents were very supportive. While they wanted me to wait until I was married to become sexually involved, they realized knowledge was powerful and important. That’s how I first got involved In college, I was a social work major with an emphasis in women’s studies. I got my first paid Planned Parenthood job as a clinic director in Ogden, Utah. The Insider: Have there been anti-abortion protests at your Planned Parenthood? Stephani: Absolutely! Every day and they’ve gotten louder and more aggressive. It was better in the early’80s than now. The Insider: What was better in the early ’80s? Stephani: The reaction to Planned Parenthood and reproductive health and even abortion. Not the lightening rod it is now The Insider: Why do you think that the anti-abortion movement has gotten “louder and more aggressive”? Stephani: Some protestors have always been loud and rude and shaming. Mostly white, middle-aged men but there are women who are also truly awful. As if our patients and their partners coming to Planned Parenthood haven’t already given their decision thought and come to their own conclusion. There was a noticeable uptick in rudeness after the Scotus leak. A bit of “we’re going to win…” They also know the police won’t do anything if called. I’ve been pushed by a protestor and I'm often yelled at. I insisted that the cops were called so there would be a record if things escalated The Insider: What do you think will happen to your Planned Parenthood facility? Stephani: Our health center will be fine The Insider: Will your abortion portion have to close down immediately? Stephani: No. Abortion will remain legal in Minnesota for the foreseeable future. We are looking into all options open to us and trying to ramp up our capabilities for the anticipated increase of patients from outside of Minnesota. We’re already seeing patients from other states. Roe has been legal but largely inaccessible to many The Insider: In what way largely inaccessible to many? Stephani: South Dakota, for example. Of course, it's a moot point now as that state had an immediate trigger ban in place. Previously, patients there would go in for two appointments. At the first they would have an exam and meet with a doctor who would read state-mandated potential risks of having an abortion, many factually incorrect (such as increased risk of breast cancer, depression, suicide). The second appointment was scheduled for 72 hours later (which could not include weekends or holidays) and required that the same doctor performed the abortion. If the doctor was sick or the patient couldn't come in for some reason the process began again. In addition to that, the only clinic providing abortions in South Dakota at that time was the Planned Parenthood health center located at the eastern border of the state. For some patients it was actually easier to travel to Colorado; fewer restrictions and closer. The Insider: What states have you now seen patients come in from? Stephani: Wisconsin, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas. The Insider: Is that since the draft opinion was leaked? No. We’ve always seen patients from the first five states. Texas since SB8 and Oklahoma since their ruling. The Insider: Did they have fewer services available in their states, because of more restrictive laws? Stephani: Yes, different rules, different gestational ages allowed, couldn’t get an appointment in time The Insider: Please describe what these women who come from out-of-state for abortions say when they arrive? Stephani: What they say is that they are incredibly grateful for us! It’s really important to know that we see a number of people who come in saying they never believed in abortion, never thought they’d be in our clinic but then they tell me how they have two kids already and can’t feed a third, or they want to finish their education, or they are in an abusive relationship. I suggest to them that they recognize they are no different from any of our patients who all have their personal reasons for being there The Insider: What are the mechanics of coming in from another state for an abortion? How long do they come in for? Is that one day? Stephani: It depends. Most are there one day. If further along in their pregnancies, it becomes a two-day procedure. First day prep, second day procedure. We will be navigating what it means to travel out of state for abortions. Still many unknowns The Insider: Can all of these women afford to do that? Stephani: Afford this? Hardly!! Abortions are not inexpensive and then add in travel expenses: hotels, childcare, missed work, etc. It’s crazy and men would not stand for it!! Thankfully, there are a number of “justice” funds that are cropping up to help. I can’t tell you how incredible this really is Another important point: making abortion care illegal will have profound effects on reproductive health care. Doctors will not be trained to handle routine miscarriage treatment and/or ectopic pregnancies! The Insider: Is Planned Parenthood a profit-making organization or a charity? Stephani: Definitely NOT a profit-making organization. Nonprofit, sliding scale and we do accept insurance from those who have coverage. The Insider: Can you please give me any sense of the cost of how much an abortion ranges from? Stephani: That’s a tough one to answer. Depends on medical versus surgical, one day versus two days. I’d say $600 on average. The Insider: Does this Supreme Court decision make you more or less likely to do this kind of work? Stephani: Oh my God, I’ll absolutely continue! What I’m doing, particularly in my patient support work, is invaluable. Every day I’m there, I know I’ve made a difference in someone’s life The Insider: You said earlier that the draft decision had emboldened protestors. What impact would you guess that today’s decision would have on the anti-abortion movement? What comes next? Stephani: At the ground level, I anticipate our protestors to be emboldened and more obnoxious. That said, I doubt the Republicans in charge really expected this day to come. They should be running scared - hopefully. We need to vote and change this tide!! The Insider: Great place to end. I am so grateful, Stephani! Stephani: You’re welcome!

June 27, 2022 Dear Editor, From my daughter-in-law: “I can’t believe that my daughters will grow up with fewer rights than I grew up with. “ That really struck me. I remember when reproductive rights and abortion were not protected. I remember the dangers to women who sought to make their own decisions about their bodies and their pregnancies. But my kids have never known anything except those rights. When I look at what has happened and is escalating in this country, I am terribly saddened. I am starting to feel like we are pawns in a chess game and that we are in a very poor position to win the game. The odds are increasingly stacked against us. In Arizona, I watched this year as many bills were presented in our state legislature to limit voting accessibility. I even attended an Arizona Senate committee hearing about voting rights. It was appalling. We have been successfully managing mail-in and early balloting here in Arizona since 1992, and 80-90 percent of Arizonans use this system. But at the hearing, the people who spoke to support huge changes in our balloting quoted “experts” on voting. I looked up three of the “experts” on my phone as I sat there and listened. Every one of them was a conspiracy theorist; one had even been protesting at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. Fortunately, almost all these attempts to make it harder to vote here have failed….so far. I guarantee they will all be raised next year in the next state legislative session. I am currently collecting signatures to put the question of continuing mail-in/early balloting here in Arizona on the ballot in November, so that the voters can speak. Our state legislature is, of course, loaded with Republicans. But changes in only a few seats would move it to a slim Democratic majority. I have never understood how important state elections are more fully than now. We spend so much time talking about the national seats, but the state level is really where the change has to happen. Especially now that we have a Supreme Court majority that thinks states should make constitutional decisions for all of us. I am angry that there hasn’t been a bigger push to pass the Women’s Equality Act. It’s just been hanging out there for years as women slip back into more and more traditional role expectations. I am angry that we have a Congress that is unable to pass laws that adequately protect our people–from guns, from a minority that wants to control us, from environmental hazards. I loved this line in a tweet I saw yesterday: “I will never forget that abortion became illegal before AR-15s.” So here’s where we are: State legislatures run by Republicans who believe the Big Lie and who are trying (and in some cases succeeding) to make it more difficult for people to cast their votes. Threats to put people into office who will ignore the will of the people and instead replace electors with those who will vote for the candidate they want…legally! An ex-president who continues to lie in the face of incredible and increasing proof that he lost the election he still insists he won. A mass of people who have been willing to do what Trump wants, and who are harassing government officials and poll workers. A Supreme Court that has been sufficiently altered so that we can certainly no longer refer to it as the “Roberts Court,” or pretend that it is not engaged in political rather than legal decisions. As I watch the House committee hearings about January 6th, I am impressed that the Republicans they are interviewing told the truth (eventually…maybe not in the moment) because they believe in the rule of law (or because they didn’t want to risk being prosecuted?). However, I am struck by how few of them there are, that such a small group of elected officials are hanging on to protect democracy. Why aren’t there more? We spend a lot of time watching and reading opinions about how we got to this place. I have friends who are honestly considering leaving the country. I have friends who fear we are seeing history that replicates the early days of Nazi Germany. My question is, What do we do about it? My answer is to increase my involvement in organizations and tasks that support my beliefs. I volunteer with Stand Indivisible, helping to get the vote out. During the Arizona legislative session, I spend an hour or so every Sunday on “Request to Speak,” a platform that allows citizens to give opinions on bills submitted by our legislators, giving my opinions on the hundreds of bills, many of them totally insane, that are being considered by the state legislature. I support Planned Parenthood with a monthly donation, something I have done for years. I write postcards, make phone calls, knock on doors to encourage voting. I am increasing my support of the National Council of Jewish Women here in Arizona. They are advocating for issues that I hold dear regarding women’s rights and immigration. I participate in protest when I can, marching at the Arizona Capitol with many others. I was just invited to join a new Facebook group named A Day Without Women, to create a day when women stay home from work and don’t spend any money. They want to show the economic and social impact that women make in a day. I think it’s about 24 hours old and already 32,000 people have joined the group. Word of mouth is amazing in the social network age. I am still working full-time at my profession and I wish I had more time for these activities. When the time comes that I decide to retire, my volunteer time will be about promoting democracy. I never thought I’d see a day when there would be any question about saving democracy in the U.S….but we have reached that time. Sandy Adler / Scottsdale, Arizona Sandy Adler (sandy@bestarizonahomes.com) is a lifelong businesswoman and devoted secular Jew who has a strong belief in Tikkun Olam (repairing the world). When she is not helping her clients with their residential real estate needs, she can be found enjoying her wonderful family and supporting the causes that are most dear to her. Sandy believes we can and should all try to make a difference! Dear Editor, Thinking about how last week’s Supreme Court decision on Roe overwhelmed the news coverage of the January 6th hearings, I have come to the conclusion that both events are really different acts in the potential tragedy facing American democracy. The restrictions on the autonomy of woman to control their destinies are, in fact, a diminution of their status as American citizens. The ability of a state to hijack a women’s body and force her to bear a child of rape or incest, even from conception, can only be described as the type of power we would usually call tyrannical or autocratic if we were talking about another country. Similarly, the steps taken by Donald Trump and his acolytes to circumvent our laws and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power (pioneered by our earliest citizens in 1800), can only be described as worthy of modern-day autocrats like Putin or Orbán. It is for this reason, the preservation of our democracy, that like-minded men and woman must work together to persuade others that candidates’ positions on Trump’s power grab and the Roe decision should be litmus tests for casting their votes in the upcoming elections. No doubt this is a tough sell during economic hard times, when people are suffering. But as we have seen in other times and countries, once the door is closed on democracy, it is rarely opened again. Doug Dworkin / New York City Doug Dworkin is a former junior high school teacher, encyclopedia editor, and IT executive at IBM. Now retired, he Is beginning a new career as a professional dabbler and dilettante. Dear Editor, Last week, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion striking down the New York concealed-carry gun law: “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. It is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.” Yet yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. So how is it there’s a right to carry a gun? Going forward, abortion rights will be determined by the states, but the court overruled New York? Justice Thomas knows of no other constitutional right that requires government permission? Oops--did he forget reproductive rights? I’m sorry, I’m confused. Abortion is not an easy decision, but it is a private one and privacy is allegedly constitutionally guaranteed, though that is a matter of interpretation, of course. I had to make a decision, many decades ago, to terminate a pregnancy and it was not simple. But the viability of the fetus, not the unborn, dictated that it was the correct medical decision. I also recall taking a dormmate for an illegal abortion in Michigan way back in 1970, then having to tend to her emotional and physical needs as well as the fear of being found guilty of a crime. I petitioned for legal access to abortion in those same years. And here we go again. The conversation has to change to health as a human right, a woman’s right to make her own health decisions, among which is reproductive health. Tell me one example where a man’s health decision is determined by law. You can’t. There isn’t any. Perhaps vasectomies need to be banned, perhaps men have to be held accountable, perhaps pay for their role. Only under certain circumstances do women get pregnant on their own but it is after using a man’s sperm. I attended a rally last night in my town center. It was small but mighty, with politicians, parents, children, men, women. All were there in defiance and disbelief. This would have been a nonevent had not a rogue Supreme Court disregarded what they’d previously decided and affirmed as precedent, not to be overturned. Helene Bednarsh / Sharon, Mass. Helene Bednarsh is the dental director for the New England AIDS Education and Training center and the vice president of HIVDENT.org. She retired from the Boston Public Health Commission, where she established the first oral health access program for people with HIV under the Ryan White CARE Act. Helene has published extensively and is passionate about her lifelong work.

Fred Plotkin, a pleasure activist and passionate Italy and culinary expert, speaks each Friday with leading people in the arts 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 Serviss / New York City Why do people ask kids “What do you want to be when you grow up?” It’s a dopey question. How on earth are semi-formed humans supposed to nurture vocational aspirations when daily life is spent dodging maternal hysterics and brotherly bullying? Speaking for myself, of course. There have always been kids living in sketchy families of origin. My situation was not unique to anyone but me. Still, moving from one shoddy apartment to another grew less adventurous and more depressing as the upheavals racked up. My self-soothing thumb-sucking calmed me until I turned ten. The chaotic household I was tethered to brought unexpected bonuses. Like Tony, a barber-turned-hypnotist, who latched onto my mother or vice versa) for six years. He exuded a beatnik-y vibe, and my mother was smitten. He lasted the longest of all of her gentleman callers. We (my mother, two older sisters and an older brother) lived in Colonial Apartments, a foreboding stone and red brick building across from the Elkins Park railroad station. It was a sprawling poorly constructed apartment with five rooms, dicey plumbing and paper-thin walls. After school, I escaped reality exploring free-range throughout the familiar neighborhood. A creek at the bottom of Ogontz Jr. High School faced a weeping willow tree whose branches swayed softly in the breeze. I felt protected and protective. Hours spent losing myself in zig-zagging current-guided paramecium. Wading ankle-deep in pebble cold, clear water that sang as it rushed downhill. Stories bloomed everywhere I looked. Didn’t take notes but remembered later. My wandering, creek-loving curiosity fed an authentic self, distant from the frightened child trapped in shaky circumstances. My mother was a hard-working wannabe nurse, but waitressed instead at Pauline & Eddie’s, a neighborhood diner joint with a counter. Sunday was a special day at home. A tablecloth appeared and covered the dining room table. An extra plate. Tony was coming for dinner, which meant we’d have roast beef, a rarity. We were a big happy Norman Rockwell family! Tony stuck around for three apartment addresses. He played guitar and won my mother’s heart. School was sanctuary. A respite from chaos. Teachers encouraged me to keep reading and writing stories. So I have. But not before having a baker’s dozen soul-sucking jobs. The worst included working as a Kelly Girls temp in Cambridge, Mass. Kelly Girls was a employment agency for females. It was a terrible name for a company, but not as bad as its male counterpart: Manpower. I became a red IBM Selectric secretary, tapping out poetry on breaks. Gazing out the Harvard Square window, pondering the existential question What am I doing here? Trying to make rent in Boston. A freelancer without a plan. Aspirational goals hadn’t yet manifested. That would take years and some major life events: Marriage. A move to Morrisville, New Jersey. Work as the employee publications editor for the New Jersey National Bank in Trenton. Where I wall-plastered New Yorker covers in my tiny windowless office. For some unfathomable reason the job included me being the treasurer of the employee social committee! Where I’d be responsible for tracking expenses. I’ve never been a math whiz, so handling budgets was not in my wheelhouse. Since this was a bank with scads of qualified money handlers, couldn’t they please let me off the hook and find a numbers whiz? Don’t ask former English majors with math anxiety to handle and keep track of money! One night before a monthly budget meeting, I had a full-blown anxiety attack. I think my ulcer-to-be germinated then. The job required me to visit bank branches and give a United Way spiel, the goal of which was to convince underpaid employees to tithe a portion of their pay. Automatically deducted from paychecks to supplement the United Way’s coffers! I knew this position was not a good fit So landing a replacement job was my next goal. At the time, Lew reported for the Trenton Times. Neither of us were in love with New Jersey. Ours was an equal opportunity marriage. So when opportunity knocked from Washington, D.C., we listened. I was over the moon when hired as a public-relations director for a high-school student-exchange organization based in D.C. The job came with an office, a secretary and a National Cathedral view. It also came with a touchy-feely boss. Before the era of “Me, Too,” inappropriate behavior was commonplace. Fortunately, Lew was offered a position at the Orlando Sentinel newspaper and we moved to sunny Florida. What followed was motherhood, as we welcomed Emily into the family. Although Lew’s job was challenging, we never felt at ease in the Deep South. Northeasterners at heart, Lew applied and got hired as a copy editor at Newsday, on Long Island. He was made an offer he couldn’t refuse. New York City was in our sights and we moved once again. After raising two kids, Manhattan beckoned, where we’ve lived ever since. Sometimes clichés are true. It really is about the journey. The path may be bumpy, but worth the trek. And I’ve been taking really good notes. Naomi Serviss is a New York-based award-winning journalist whose work has been published in The New York Times, Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Highroads (AAA magazine), in-flight publications, spa and travel magazines and websites, including BroadwayWorld.com

By John Rolfe / Red Hook, N.Y. Don’t look now, but Sarah Palin is on the comeback trail. One of four candidates in an August 16 ranked-choice election for the congressional seat left vacant by the death of Alaska’s long-serving Rep. Don Young, Palin has former President Donald Trump’s hearty endorsement and will surely be welcomed by the GOP’s base nationally. She is still beloved by conservatives as a tell-it-like-it-is culture warrior. Unfortunately for Palin, many of her constituents in Alaska still resent her for resigning as governor in 2009 amid a blizzard of ethics complaints and requests for official records of her behavior. One of her three current opponents, Republican Nick Begich, has dismissed her as someone who “makes a living essentially as a human Hallmark card doing celebrity videos.” She’s also been in the news for having lost her protracted defamation suit against The New York Times in February. Palin claimed the paper acted with malice in an editorial that claimed one of her political action committee’s ads incited a mass shooting 10 months later in Tucson, Ariz., that killed six people and seriously wounded 13, including then-Rep. Gabby Giffords. Compared to Republican firebrand/loose cannon Marjorie Taylor Greene, Palin seems quaint. But when she burst onto the national scene as John McCain’s surprising choice for VP, Palin’s vacuous, smirking snark made her a celebrity. After losing the 2008 presidential election as McCain’s running mate against Barack Obama and Joe Biden, Palin turned to TV commentary, writing a book (Going Rogue), and making personalized videos for Cameo. Proving that dignity is no object, she wore a pink and blue bear suit on The Masked Singer while rapping "Baby Got Back.” You may recollect Obama’s famously dismissive description of conservatives in 2008 as bitter people who “cling to guns or religion.” Palin replied eight years later while endorsing Trump for president, proclaiming that she was fighting for the "Right-winging, bitter-clinging, proud clingers of our guns, our God, our religion and our Constitution.” It’s no surprise that she’s been a ripe target for those who see her as the GOP’s original Big Mama Whack-a-Doodle. Palin became most famous for being parodied by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. One of Palin’s best-known quotes (“I can see Russia from my house”) actually came from one of Fey’s portrayals and not Palin herself. Likewise, the fossil fuel war cry, “Drill, Baby, Drill!” and the put-down “lamestream media” are not Palin’s though she is strongly associated with them. You can find some of her actual, more thoughtful utterances here. I’m willing to bet that you remember at least one of QAnon fan Greene’s famous malaprop public pronouncements (e.g. “Not only do we have the D.C. jail which is the D.C. gulag, but now we have Nancy Pelosi’s gazpacho police spying on members of Congress, spying on the legislative work that we do, spying on our staff and spying on American citizens.”). You may also recall the almost-as-inflammatory Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Christmas card with Boebert’s family (including children) holding rifles. But can you cite any significant, thoughtful legislation either of them have proposed or shepherded to fruition? If Palin wins a House seat, it’s likely that she, Greene and Boebert will become the GOP’s answer to The Squad, the quartet of progressive Democrats (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley) who have been given more power and influence than they would ordinarily have simply by dint of the right-wing media’s fixation on them. Palin made history as the GOP’s first female nominee for VP, but I still believe that McCain would have defeated Obama with a more sensible running mate. That was then. Palin’s notoriety paved the way for Greene, Boebert, and God-knows-how-many-more-to-come female Republicans who are known mostly for being confrontational and outrageous while remaining viable candidates in a country where even an illegal attempt to overturn an election is overshadowed by voter concern about gas prices. Such are the baleful times in which we live and Sarah Palin is, if anything, a woman of our times. John Rolfe is a former senior editor for Sports Illustrated for Kids, a longtime columnist for the Poughkeepsie Journal/USA Today Network, and author of The Goose in the Bathroom: Stirring Tales of Family Life. His school bus drivin’ blog “Hellions, Mayhem and Brake Failure” is parked on his website Celestialchuckle.com (https://celestialchuckle.com) with the meter running.

On Sunday (June 18), the CDC recommended that all children 6 months to five years old receive Covid-19 vaccines. That expanded eligibility to nearly 20 million more children. But a new poll in May from the Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that many parents are hesitant; only about 18 percent of Americans with children under five had plans to vaccinate their young children if vaccines became available. Karen Meyer, a Maryland mother of two children under five, has no such hesitation. In a frank interview with The Insider on Sunday, Meyer shared her family's thinking. The Insider: Hi Karen. Thanks for talking by text with The Insider! Karen Meyer: Of course! The Insider: I'd like to ask you few questions about yourself and your family. What city do you live in? Karen Meyer: I live in Ellicott City, Maryland with my husband Jeff and two daughters, who are 3 and 1. It is about an hour away from Washington D.C. and 30 minutes from Baltimore The Insider: Do you work? Karen Meyer: Yes. I am a physical therapist. I work part-time The Insider: And your husband? Karen Meyer: He is an engineer The Insider: And you both have science educations in your background, right? Karen Meyer: Yes The Insider: How old are you and your husband? Karen Meyer: I’m 31 and my husband is 30 The Insider: Could you please describe you and your husband's vaccination history? Karen Meyer: We both got vaccinated as soon as it was available. My husband is immunocompromised so we wanted to get the most protection possible The Insider: Have you also been boosted? Karen Meyer: Yes we both got boosted. We both got Pfizer. The Insider: Have either of you had Covid? Karen Meyer: No, thank goodness The Insider: Have any of your extended family members had it, or your friends? Karen Meyer: My brother and sister-in-law just got it. My sister-in-law runs a day care. And my husband’s sister and brother-in-law had it as well as their boys The Insider: Were any of them seriously ill? Karen Meyer: Thankfully no. The Insider: Were the adults all vaccinated and boosted too? Karen Meyer: Yes. But my grandfather got Covid and passed away The Insider: I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather! How long ago was that? Karen Meyer: December. He was 91 years old. He picked it up in a rehab center. Recovering from a hip fracture The Insider: I'm sorry. Because of your extended family’s experience, Covid must seem like a risk. Karen Meyer: Yes, we definitely were very cautious. The Insider: How would you describe very cautious? Any restaurants? Movies? Karen Meyer: Initially we ate in, wiped down all our groceries and avoided public events. Once vaccinated we went to a few restaurants. Tried to be outdoors when possible. Wore a mask in public areas The Insider: I'm very interested in how your young daughters were part of that equation. How would you describe your lifestyle with your kids as far as Covid has been concerned? Karen Meyer: My older daughter attended preschool this year and wore a mask inside even when optional, but not outside. I also did not bring them into stores with me when possible. Did a lot of Amazon orders, Target pick up and giant grocery delivery The Insider: How about the baby? Karen Meyer: We kept her away from crowds and out of stores when possible since she could not wear a mask. The Insider: When you and your husband were making those decisions was the subject of whether to vaccinate your kids if possible already part of the discussion? Karen Meyer: We knew we wanted to get both our children vaccinated as soon as it was available. We just didn’t have access to it for them yet. Actually, when the pandemic first started, I was pregnant with my youngest daughter. The effects on pregnant women were not know yet so I got it as soon as possible after I had her. Since I had her in December I was very far along in the pregnancy at that time. The Insider: That was a tricky decision, I bet. Karen Meyer: Yes. it was. Luckily, I was so close to delivery that I was able to get it soon afterwards The Insider: So you must have been delighted this week when the CDC announced that vaccines would be available for kids under 5. Karen Meyer: I was very excited! I plan to call Monday as soon as the pediatric center opens The Insider: I'm curious whether you or your husband had any side effects from your own vaccinations. Karen Meyer: Nothing too terrible. Just mild fatigue and a sore arm. Similar to a flu shot The Insider: Are you worried about your kids having side effects? Have you been doing a lot of reading? Karen Meyer: I feel the benefits outweigh the risks. I want my kids to be protected from Covid and to be able to clear it faster if they were to get infected The Insider: I bet you have friends with kids in the same age group. What are they doing? Karen Meyer: We do. So far, all the parents we have talked to plan to get their kids vaccinated and are excited that it was approved The Insider: Have you discussed Covid with your 3-year-old? Karen Meyer: We have The Insider: What have you told her? How much does she understand? Karen Meyer: We told her that we have to wear a mask so that we don’t get sick and she has been very good at following directions. Her preschool dolls even wore masks The Insider: So how will you explain the vaccination to her? Karen Meyer: She has gotten shots before so we will just tell her that it will help protect her from getting sick. She is very good with shots The Insider: Just one last question, if it doesn't seem too nosy; Covid precautions seem to vary with people's politics. It's very interesting that your friendship group is eager about these vaccines for younger kids. How would you briefly characterize your own politics and that of your friends? Karen Meyer: I’m Republican and so is my husband. As far as our friends go, I think it’s a mix but we don’t really talk a lot about politics The Insider: Would you mind if I ask you more about that? There's more Republican resistance to vaccines generally. I can certainly stop here, though, if that's too much! Karen Meyer: I don’t have too much to add there but I do not feel that the vaccine should be a political issue. It is backed by science and we love our children and that is good enough for me The Insider: Good place to end! Thanks, Karen! We really appreciate this. Karen Meyer: You’re welcome!

By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. If there’s any truth to the old saw, “When it rains, it pours,” last week was the start of a tsunami for Donald Trump. It may prove so for some of his cohorts as well. In Monday’s hearing (June 13) of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack, the testimony of witness after witness from the former president’s inner circle—Republicans all—revealed their boss’ criminal intent to overthrow the 2020 election through broad dissemination of election fraud claims that he knew were lies. On Tuesday, the committee released video testimony of former White House attorney Eric Herschmann’s explosive reaction to a proposal floated by Trump-allied lawyer John Eastman. The latter, a central Trump-affiliated lawyer, allegedly wanted to continue challenging the election results even after the failure of the Trump-incited violent January 6 coup effort. On Wednesday, the committee released videos of Georgia Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk conducting a several hours- long tour on January 5 for people who are suspected of using the tour to case the Capitol complex for the attack the next day. Wednesday also brought news that Supreme Court Justice Thomas’s influence-peddling wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, pressured 29 Arizona lawmakers to choose electors who would override the state’s popular vote for Joe Biden. In addition, the committee had obtained newly discovered emails between Ginni Thomas and Trump ally John Eastman, who had also clerked for her husband at the Supreme Court. Eastman had a major role in pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to reject certified electors and replace them with so-called alternates whose votes would be counted for Trump. And for the finale, the Thursday hearing addressed the dramatic pressure on Pence to stop the electoral vote count, and the violence which was brought to bear when he did not ultimately succumb. Monday’s Highlights Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson set the stage for Monday’s deliberations, stating that the hearing would tell how Donald Trump lost an election, knew he lost, and “decided to wage an attack on our democracy, an attack on the American people by trying to rob you of your voice in our democracy, and in doing so, lit the fuse that led to the horrific violence of January 6th, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol, sent by Donald Trump to stop the transfer of power.” Among the most prominent witnesses were former Fox News Politics Editor Chris Stirewalt, who testified in person, and Trump’s former campaign manager Bill Stepien. Stepien had been expected to testify in person, but—plot twist—his wife went into labor that morning and he had to travel to be with her. So, the committee presented video from their interview with Stepien in February. Stirewalt, beaming with pride over having “beat” the competition, proudly emphasized that Fox News was the first to accurately call Arizona for Biden. And when Chairman Thompson asked him who had won the 2020 presidential election, Stirewalt trumpeted, as if at a convention: “Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., of the great state of Delaware.” Stirewalt also explained to Zoe Lofgren, the committee member manager of the day, that it is quite routine to have a “red mirage” on Election Day. That is because early in-person votes often give the impression that Republicans are winning. But to declare a winner, one must wait for the mail-in/absentee ballots because those votes—which are equally legitimate—come in later, and counting them takes longer. In her opening statement, Vice Chair Liz Cheney stated that Donald Trump knew before the election that the counting of mail-in ballots in several states would not begin until late in the day and would not be completed for several days. She said definitively: “This was expected, reported, and widely known.” On election night, in-person votes were still being counted and mail-in ballots had not yet been counted, so Trump’s advisors agreed that Trump did not have a basis for declaring victory that night. According to former campaign manager Stepien, the only one who maintained that they should declare victory was an inebriated Rudy Giuliani. Stepien said he specifically expressed the view that it was “too early to call the race.” When asked whether anyone who was part of that conversation disagreed with his message, Stepien responded: “Yes. The President.” Thus, Trump rejected the advice of his campaign experts. Instead, he claimed he won, and insisted that the vote counting stop: “We want all voting to stop. We don't want them to find any ballots at 4:00 in the morning and add them to the list.” But given that Trump was well-informed by his advisers that only a small part of the vote was in, that they needed to wait for the rest to be counted, and that it might take days, Trump cannot argue in good faith that mail-in ballots coming in late were any indication of fraud. In fact, Trump had been speaking against the legitimacy of mail-in voting long before the election. Stepien stated that he and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy met with Trump in the summer of 2020 because they were concerned that Republicans, who often vote absentee by mail, would be dissuaded from voting: “But the President's mind was made up and you understand, you know, how many times to, you know, go to the well on a particular topic.” Why was Trump’s mind so stubbornly made up long before the actual election? Could it have been a calculation that he could demand that voting stop while only a small number of votes were in and he was ahead? As for the other various tales of fraud that Trump or his minions concocted and brayed against, testimony showed that not one of them was supported by any evidence. Richard Donoghue, Trump’s Acting Deputy Attorney General from December 2020 to January 2021, testified in a video interview: “I said something to the effect of, sir, we've done dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews. The major allegations are not supported by the evidence developed. We've looked at Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada.” B.J. Pak, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, told Trump that the allegation of a suitcase of votes being brought in was not true. Al Schmidt, former city commissioner of Philadelphia for more than 10 years, testified that when he continued counting votes after Trump preemptively declared victory and insisted that the canvassing of mail-in ballots stop, he was attacked. Trump tweeted that Schmidt was a “so-called Republican” who was “being used big time by the Fake News Media,” and that Schmidt “refuses to look at a mountain of corruption & dishonesty. We win!” This resulted in death threats against Schmidt and his family. Ben Ginsberg, one of the leading election law attorneys in the country, is famous for representing Republican presidential candidates in election cases dating back to the 2000 Bush v. Gore litigation. Ginsberg testified that in none of the 60 court challenges brought by the Trump campaign did the campaign make its case. Rep. Lofgren noted that despite those universal losses, the Trump campaign said that the courts did not hear them out, and she asked for Ginsberg’s opinion. He responded: “They did have their day in court.” Ginsberg added that in the post-election reviews in the six battleground states, “there was no credible evidence of fraud produced by the Trump campaign or his supporters.” As Lofgren then noted, more than 60 judges in nine states dismissed Trump’s election fraud claims. This included 24 elected or appointed Republican state judges and 22 Republican-appointed federal judges—10 of those by Trump himself. But the icing on the cake was former Attorney General Bill Barr’s blunt video testimony. Barr said, with a snigger, that on Trump’s part, “There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were.” Barr added that he told Trump straight out: “that the stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public were bull—was bullshit. I mean that the claims of fraud were bullshit. And you know, he was indignant about that.” The final important point made on Monday was that Trump continued to push the fraud lie after all his campaign’s litigation had failed in order to con supporters out of their money. Amanda Wick, Senior Investigative Counsel of the committee, testified on video that between Election Day and January 6, 2021, the Trump campaign sent millions of fundraising emails to Trump supporters claiming: “Leftwing mob was undermining the election," and urging supporters to "Step up to protect the integrity of the election," and, "Fight back." Small dollar donors were urged to donate to the “Official Election Defense Fund.” This effort raised $250 million, nearly $100 million in the first week after the election. But the committee discovered that no such fund existed. On November 9, 2020, about a week after the election, Trump created the Save America Pac, and most of the money raised for the alleged election defense fund was moved to that PAC—not used for election-related litigation. The Save America PAC gave $1 million to Trump Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows' charitable foundation; $1 million to the America First Policy Institute; a conservative organization which employs several former Trump administration officials; $204,857 to the Trump Hotel Collection, and over $5 million to Event Strategies Inc, the company that ran President Trump's January 6th rally on the Ellipse. Donald Trump, Jr.’s girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, reportedly received $60,000 for a two-minute speech at Trump’s rally on the Ellipse on January 6. And to whom did the rest of that $250 million go? As Rep. Lofgren put it, “Not only was there the big lie, there was the big rip-off.” Tuesday’s Teaser On Tuesday, the committee released a striking video of former White House attorney Eric Herschmann as a preview of explosive testimony to come. Herschmann testified that, after the savage January 6 attack on the Capitol, Trump attorney John Eastman called him, apparently trying to propose continuing to challenge the election in Georgia. Eastman was the originator and promoter of the lie that Pence had the authority to reject electoral votes and hand the election to Trump. Herschmann said: "I don't remember why he called me. He started asking me something about dealing with Georgia and preserving something potentially for appeal.” Vehemently, Herschmann narrated, “I said to him, 'are you out of your efffing mind?' Right.” I said, "I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on—'orderly transition.' I don't want to hear any other effing words coming out of your mouth, no matter what, other than 'orderly transition.' Repeat those words to me.” Asked how Eastman replied, Herschmann said, "eventually," he repeated the words. Herschmann continued describing the conversation, telling the committee he advised Eastman, “‘Now, I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life: Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You’re gonna need it.’ Then I hung up on him.” Apparently, Eastman took Herschmann’s advice seriously because he later asked the Trump Administration to add him to the list of people considered for pardons. They did not do so. And when Eastman met with the committee, he took the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination 100 times. Wednesday’s Bombshells It was reported on June 15 both that Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife, had pressured 29 Arizona lawmakers to choose alternate electors, and that the House committee had obtained email correspondence between Thomas and John Eastman. As noted, Eastman played a key role in efforts to pressure Pence to replace legally certified electors with so-called alternates whose votes would be counted for Trump. The sameness of their goals, taken with their newly discovered email correspondence, has led the committee to invite Thomas to meet with them for an interview. Thomas has announced that she looks forward to doing so to clarify her allegedly innocent activities. We’ll see whether she follows through. In addition, the committee released video of Georgia Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk conducting a tour on January 5 for people who may have been using the tour to survey the Capitol complex for the January 6 attack. They were ushered around the complex for several hours, even though it was closed to the public on that day. At first, Loudermilk had claimed that there were no tours. Later, when faced with video evidence of him conducting a tour, he admitted there was a tour, but claimed it was just a constituent family with young children. But it was then pointed out that there were about 15 people, and that the so-called tour took place in the Rayburn, Longworth, and Cannon Office Buildings, as well as entrances to tunnels leading to the U.S. Capitol—not the usual locations to which tourists are taken. In addition, at least one of those constituents took photos of stairwells, offices, tunnels, and security checkpoints. Furthermore, it appears that the individual whom video showed taking such photographs was also caught on video the next day, heading to the Capitol, threatening: “We’re coming in like white on rice for Pelosi, Nadler, Schumer, even you, AOC. We’re coming to take you out and pull you out by your hairs…. When I get done with you, you’re going to need a shine on top of that bald head.” Loudermilk has denied that the photos were reconnaissance and claimed not to know the individual who went to the Capitol the next day. But like Ginni Thomas, Loudermilk has been invited to meet with the committee about evidence of that tour. Thursday: Pence Stood Up to Trump’s Pressure—Eventually The 12th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution provides for Electoral College electors to meet and vote by ballot in their respective states for the president and vice president. They then sign, certify, and transmit those ballots to the President of the Senate (that is, the Vice President of the nation) in Washington, D.C. The 12th Amendment then states that the vice president “shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” This sentence does not give the Vice President any authority to choose what votes he will accept or reject, or the power to replace certified votes with others. But in an effort seemingly coordinated by high-ranking members of Trump’s campaign team, Republicans in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Mexico had sent in counterfeit Electoral College results to compete with the legitimately certified results. And Trump’s legal henchman, John Eastman, advanced a scheme in which Vice President Pence would reject the certified ballots, perhaps accepting the alternates or, based on the confusion, send the ballots back to the states to reexamine which should be accepted in order to keep Trump in office despite his loss of the election. Thursday’s hearing presented two in-person witnesses to address the illegality of Eastman’s scheme, his understanding that it was illegal, and the extreme pressure brought to bear against Pence to force him to go along with the plot. Eastman Knew His Scheme Was Illegal The committee’s first witness, well-respected and extremely conservative former Judge Michael Luttig, had once been on the short list to join the Supreme Court. And, as coincidence would have it, John Eastman—against whose so-called theory Luttig was testifying—had once been Luttig’s law clerk. Judge Luttig, speaking slowly and deliberately, declared that neither the Constitution nor U.S. laws would support the vice president counting “alternative electoral slates from the states that had not been officially certified.” The committee’s second in-person witness, Greg Jacob, former counsel to Pence, agreed with Luttig, stating that there was no way that the framers of the Constitution, who had declared George III to be a tyrant, “would have put in the hands of one person the authority to determine who was going to be president of the United States.” Jacob maintained that Vice President Pence’s “first instinct” was decisively the same. Jacob and Eastman spoke on this matter at a number of different meetings. In trying to persuade Eastman his so-called theory was wrong, Jacob testified he had, on one occasion, said: “I mean, John, back in 2000, you weren’t jumping up and saying, ‘Al Gore had this authority to do that.’ You would not want Kamala Harris to be able to exercise that kind of authority in 2024, when, I hope, Republicans will win the election, and I know you hope that too, John. And he said, ‘Absolutely, Al Gore did not have a basis to do it in 2000. Kamala Harris shouldn’t be able to do it in 2024, but I think you should do it today.’” Clearly, Eastman knew that his proposal was not legal. But, according to Jacob, during a meeting on January 4, at which the president was present, “when I raised concerns that position would likely lose in court, his view was that the court simply wouldn’t get involved. They would invoke the political question doctrine, and therefore we could have some comfort proceeding with that path.” In other words—don’t worry. If Pence goes along, they could get away with installing Trump. Jacob added that in a January 5 meeting, he said to Eastman, “John, if the Vice President did what you’re asking him to do, we would lose 9 to nothing in the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we?” He initially started, ‘Well, I think maybe you would lose only seven to two.’ After some further discussion acknowledged, ‘Well, yeah, you’re right. We would lose 9 to nothing.’” But still, Eastman, on behalf of Trump, persisted. Eric Herschmann told him that telling 78 plus million people that you’re going to invalidate their votes, “They’re not going to tolerate that…You’re going to cause riots in the streets.” According to Herschmann, Eastman’s response was “words to the effect of, there’s been violence in the history of our country to protect the democracy or protect the republic.” Perhaps Eastman was so callous about such violence because equivalent violence was already planned to thwart the democratic choice of the people. The Pressure Campaign The pressure on Pence in private was intense, culminating with Trump’s call from the Oval Office on the morning of January 6 in front of the President’s family and others. They testified that Trump began calmly, but became “heated,” calling Pence a “wimp,” and “the P word” (presumably, “pussy”), and saying “I made the wrong decision four or five years ago.” Trump, before multiple witnesses, was berating Pence to break the law. The pressure Trump applied publicly was positively dangerous to Pence. His tweets insisted that Pence had the power to hand him the election. And despite Pence’s clear statement to Trump that he could not unilaterally determine the election’s outcome, Trump then issued a statement that he and Pence were in total agreement that Pence could. This set up Trump’s mob to feel that Pence had betrayed them when he did not follow through. And of course, it led them into trying to hunt Pence down and hang him. Trump continued to stoke this violence even after the Capitol was breached. After Pence and his family and staff were moved to a secure location, the Secret Service wanted them all to get into cars. Pence refused. The head of his detail said that the cars would not leave without Pence’s permission. To which Pence responded “Tim, I know you, I trust you, but you’re not the one behind the wheel.” Pence apparently was concerned that he could be driven away from the Capitol, preventing completion of the count, such action also serving the Trump-Eastman plot. The Ongoing Danger As Judge Luttig testified, if Pence had caved in and done Trump and Eastman’s bidding, it would have plunged America into what Luttig said “would have been tantamount to a revolution within a constitutional crisis.” But the fact that Vice President Pence did the right thing has not eliminated the danger. As Judge Luttig also testified: “Trump, his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to democracy… because to this very day, they pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the presidential candidate were to lose… they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election—but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020.” Judge Luttig warned: “I don’t speak those words lightly…the former president and his allies are executing that blueprint for 2024 in open and plain view of the American public… I would have never uttered one single one of those words unless the former president and his allies were candidly and proudly speaking those exact words to America.” I agree with Judge Luttig. One last word, however. Judge Luttig aside, although it is a good thing that all of these Trump inner-circle Republicans are testifying to what occurred and to their own opposition to the plot, they are, nevertheless, proverbial rats jumping off of a sinking ship. If any one of them had true integrity, or cared about democracy more than their own careers, he would have publicly denounced the plot while it was happening—not over a year later, when “invited” or subpoenaed by the committee. Even Mike Pence, whom his staff attempted to present as staunch and true and steely in his resolve—was not. He did not publicly state that he had no authority to toss electoral votes. And based on his consultation with Dan Quayle and others, he tried to find some way that he could legally do it. As reported in the Bob Woodward-Robert Costa book, Peril, Pence told Trump, “We’ve exhausted every option. I’ve done everything I could and then some to find a way around this. It’s simply not possible.” And, notably, Pence himself has not agreed to testify before the committee. He’s too busy trying to weasel his way into a possible presidential run. So, while we should be thankful that Pence ultimately stood firm and did the right thing, neither he nor those testifying last week should be held up as paragons of virtue. They are latecomers to their so-called profiles in courage. Political columnist Jessie Seigel had a long career as a government attorney in which she honed her analytic skills. She has also twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, and has been a finalist for a number of literary awards. In addition, Seigel is 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. Of this balance in her work between the analytic and the imaginative, Seigel jokes, “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.