Category Archives: crime

The 28th Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

The United States Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity has scared the bejesus out of  a lot of people on both sides of the aisle because it grants Presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts but leaves the President liable for his unofficial acts. The ruling puts the first determination of what’s official and what is not into the hands of judges hearing cases accusing former President Trump of making illegal efforts to change the outcome of the 2020 election and of taking classified documents with him when he left office—among other alleged sins. Any decisions by the judges can be appealed to the Supreme Court, further delaying any final disposition of the cases.

There are some things we haven’t heard discussed much that might backfire on Trump.

Some think the ruling means that this entire issue will dog Trump’s campaign for weeks. The public discussion of what he did or didn’t do could continue, if not increase, the uncertainty about whether his party and his voters will elect a President who also is a jailbird or, under a reasonable person’s concept of proper behavior, should be one.

Presidential liability will be awfully hard to describe but right off, the amendment should provide that no President can pardon himself for any crimes, official or unofficial.

It should begin with this concept:

The President of the United States, constitutionally, must be born in this country or an area that is considered part of the United States (overseas military bases, for example).  The President, therefore is, first of all, a citizen of a country often described as “a country of laws, not of kings.”  To suggest that a citizen elevated by fellow citizens to the most important office in the land has been given powers by those citizens that go beyond the law governing all citizens except for himself or herself is absurd.

Period.

We are wondering if the nation’s top legal scholars are starting to coalesce into a working group that will draft an amendment clearly stating that a President can be held criminally liable, even for official acts. The concern that a president could legally order the assassination of a rival, while seeming extreme, is a real concern, given Trump’s boasting.

But what about a President allowing water boarding?  Dropping atomic bombs on cities?  Freeing slaves in rebelling states?  Ordering Japanese-Americans into concentration camps without due process? Closing banks in bad economic times?  Sending federal troops to cities?

Think back to historic presidential actions—-the evacuation of Native Americans from their homelands in the east and forcing them to walk to hostile land in future Oklahoma.

Buying the entire Louisiana Territory and financing it with money borrowed from a hostile country (England) without authorization from Congress.

Congressman Joe Morelle of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, announced the day before Independence Day that he will introduce a proposed 28th Amendment “to reverse the Supreme Court’s catastrophic decision and ensure no president is above the law. This amendment will do what they failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” He continued in a statement from his office, “The Supreme Court decision will cause a seismic shift in the powers of the presidency unless we take immediate action to ensure accountability, integrity, and justice prevail.”

He sent a letter to his colleagues saying, “This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” urging his colleagues “to stand with me on the front line to protect our democracy.”

“Immediate action,” unfortunately, is unlikely and perhaps unlikely in the hyper-partisan Congress. The House and the Senate both must approve the resolution with two-thirds votes.  If that occurs, three-fourths of the states, 38, will have to ratify the amendment before it is added to the Constitution.  The process could take years, far more years than Donald Trump will serve if he is re-elected. But the danger Congressman Morelle sees flowing from Trump is real and it is imminent and there is precedent.

0-0-0-0

What Trump did and said after the death five years ago of George Floyd prompted the Chicago Council of Lawyers to speak out. It’s a little long but it’s important reading in today’s climate.

The United States is a Nation Ruled by Laws, Not Kings

The Rule of Law, not the rule of kings, is a founding principle of our country. It remains a core principle that defines who we are as Americans. It allows each of us to walk down a public street without fear of being grabbed, without cause, by government police and thrown into an unmarked van. It allows us to have a peaceful potluck with friends without fear that a government official will use violence against us just for getting together. It allows us to speak our mind against government policies, without worrying that those with power will use our speech as a reason to harm us…  

The Rule of Law in the United States does not begin with the President. It does not begin with any political party. It begins with Our Constitution…The President isn’t at the top. The Constitution is…

The original Constitution is mainly about one thing: power. The Constitution’s structure for our government is borne from the core principle that a single individual should not hold all power.  It divides power between three branches of government, and it further divides power between the federal government and the States, whose laws are also subject and subordinate to the Constitution…

The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled that none of the Bill of Rights, not even the First Amendment, is unlimited. But these Court decisions recognize that the limits on our individual rights must be constructed with care and exercised in a narrow and judicious manner. In 1969, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court (Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham) held, in protecting an American citizen’s right to protest and also allowing for certain limited restrictions, that any licensing requirement for “free expression in publicly owned places” is unconstitutional if it’s not narrowly defined and objectively applied.

The Constitution, again seeking to limit federal authority, provides that each state is empowered to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public within its state. The power of states is reflected in the fact that most criminal law is state law; most police forces are state police forces, not federal. While there is some federal criminal law, in comparison to state criminal laws, it is narrow and constrained.  There is no federal law giving a President the right to direct federal officers to occupy a city or a state or to dominate any part of a state, on his own accord, without an invitation from a state government that is seeking help.

Federal law gives federal authorities the right to conduct some actions within states, but these authorized acts are targeted and constrained. Federal agents are authorized to protect federal properties. Federal agents are authorized to enforce federal criminal laws, such as kidnapping, bank robbery, criminal conspiracy, human trafficking, mail fraud, and other specific laws. This all fits within our established system of laws.  These laws are all tailored to fit within the bounds of our Constitution.

Federal Officers are Doing Precisely What the Constitution Prohibits

Is the President following these laws? Is he abiding his oath to serve the Constitution? What are federal officers in Portland doing? As summarized on July 17 by Charlie Warzel, an opinion writer at large for The New York Times:

Thursday night [July 16] marked the 50th consecutive night of demonstrations in Portland, Ore. The protests began after the killing of George Floyd—tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest police violence and racial injustice. Since then, the protests have grown smaller, but clashes between law enforcement officers and protesters have escalated—on July 12, videos circulated of a federal officer shooting a protester in the head with a nonlethal munition, resulting in a skull fracture. Coverage of the unrest has caught the attention of President Trump, who vowed to ‘dominate’ the protesters with federal law enforcement officers.

 The New York Times reported the story of Christopher David, a former Navy Civil Engineering Corps Officer and a 1988 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy:

“I wasn’t even paying attention to the protests at all until the feds came in,” Mr. David said. “When that video came out of those two unmarked guys in camouflage abducting people and putting them in minivans, that’s when I became aware.”

He had taken a bus to the Portland courthouse and was about to leave around 10:45 p.m. when federal officers emerged and began advancing on the protesters. He said he felt the need to ask the officers, Why were they violating their oath to the Constitution?

Instead of getting an answer on Saturday, Mr. David, a 6-foot-2, 280-pound former Navy varsity wrestler, found himself being beaten with a baton by a federal officer dressed in camouflage fatigues as another doused him with pepper spray, according to video of the encounter.

 As Mr. David noted, one widely circulated video from Portland shows a group of men in camouflage military-like uniforms emerging from a van that one might see in anywhere USA, grabbing a protester walking alone on the sidewalk, not on or next to federal property, forcing him into the van without telling him who they were or why they grabbed him, and driving away.  Another video shows federal police using tear gas and flash bangs on a single line of about two dozen mothers linked arm-to-arm, wearing bike helmets, and chanting “moms are here, Feds stay clear.”

Every Oregon official that might have authority to request help from federal officers has pleaded for the federal agents to leave. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler told NBC News that the presence of federal agents was making things worse: “…They’re not wanted here. We haven’t asked them here. In fact, we want them to leave.” Oregon Governor Kate Brown asked the President directly to withdraw these agents from her state. The Washington Post reported on July 17 that the Governor said: “I told him that the federal government should remove federal officers from our streets. I said it’s like adding gasoline to a fire.” The Post also reported that Governor Brown is convinced that “‘they are not interested in problem solving,’ and this has ‘nothing to do with public safety.’”

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has sued to prohibit these federal agents from making further arrests and continuing to violate the Constitutional rights of protesters and those detained. “I think every American needs to be concerned about what’s happening here in Portland. These federal agencies are operating with no transparency and against the will of just about every leader in our state,” said Rosenblum.

Federal officials claim that federal law gives their agents the authority to do what they are doing, regardless of whether proper state authorities request their presence. These claims are specious, at best. It is not even a close call…

The federal agents are not limiting their targets to the specific individuals violating federal law by damaging federal property.  They are not using their authority narrowly, when they use their weapons against mothers standing in a line chanting or when they strike and pepper spray a U.S. Navy veteran who is trying to talk with them. These federal officers are not judiciously using their authority when they grab a man walking alone on the street and take him by force into an unmarked van and drive him away to an undisclosed location – all without any probable cause or identifying themselves as federal officers.

Whatever the reason, the federal officers are making the streets of Portland more lawless, not less. These federal officers are openly and egregiously violating the rights of peaceful, law-abiding mothers, veterans, and other Americans, rather than protecting them. These federal officers are jeopardizing the safety of local law enforcement, not bolstering it…

Trump is now Primed to Attack the Rule of Law in Chicago

The President now appears to be targeting Chicago, just as he has targeted Portland – but this time, the President is not even offering the guise of protecting federal property as the reason.  The Chicago Tribune reported on July 20 that the “U.S. Department of Homeland Security is crafting plans to deploy about 150 federal agents to Chicago this week.” The paper reports that the Department has not disclosed its plan for the additional agents, and that even the Superintendent of the Chicago Police does not know why this administration is sending additional federal law enforcement.

The President has talked as recently as July 20 about sending in troops to fix the local violence problem in Chicago. It is undeniable that parts of Chicago do have a serious gun violence problem that needs to be fixed. Reasonable people have asked whether more government policing would help; other reasonable people have asked whether it might help to do policing in another way. Whatever the solution or solutions might be, the President has no legal authority —without a request from legally authorized Illinois officials—to move federal officers to Chicago for the purpose of confronting local crime issues.  Neither Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot nor Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker have requested additional federal officers for that purpose.

There have been ongoing peaceful protests on issues of anti-Black racial injustice in our town, but there has been little-to-no reported property damage from the recent demonstrations.  Further, and more to the point, we are not aware of a single report of any damage to federal properties from the recent protests…Yet, Trump has recently grouped Portland with Chicago and other American cities, such as Detroit, Philadelphia, and New York, as places of “anarchy.” For Chicago, and we expect for the other named cities too, this is less true than saying that a naked emperor is wearing the most beautiful clothes ever made from satin and silk. Chicago is dealing with modern American problems, to be sure, which now include COVID-19 – but Chicago is not a place where anarchy reigns…

Our system starts with the Rule of Law, not the rule of a king or an emperor or even a President.

President Trump and the leaders of the officers in his administration apparently have no shame. The Trump administration started to use federal agents dressed in military gear to attack peaceful, law-abiding citizens in Portland. Now, it is moving federal officers into Chicago to possibly do the same thing in our city; it is threatening to deploy more federal officers in other cities throughout America…Whatever federal agents are now doing in Portland, we do know one thing about their actions: they are not doing them in the name of the law.

Many people fear the United States Supreme Court has blown a hole in the Constitution and has given Donald Trump Carte Blanche to do anything that he wishes to do in carrying out his stated vengeance campaign.

It is beyond urgent that this hole in the Constitution be closed. It is time to create Donald Trump’s legacy—-which he will not want—-by enacting a 28th Amendment to protect all of us from someone who believes he is greater than the country he seeks to rule.

 

King Lear and the Convicted Felon

Posted on by
Reply

A Shakespearian tragedy, some are calling the Trump conviction, not noting the irony of associating someone such as our former president with the talents of a great author about whom he likely has never read, at least with any understanding or appreciation.

One definition of a literary tragedy is a work in which the main character has “a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.”

That pretty well matches the main character of the drama we are witnessing.   Unfortunately, it also describes many of his acolytes who by their support of him are becoming characters like him.

Which of Shakespeare’s 17th Century tragic characters most resemble the convicted felon/tar baby that many political hopefuls are eager to get stuck to with increased firmness—an old man who rewards those most loyal to him and in doing so is taught the hard way that rewarding loyalty has its penalties?

King Lear is the story of a old man who wants to pass on his estate to the one of his three daughters who loves him best. Two daughters tolerate him at best but flatter him to win his favor. The third daughter, the one he actually loves the most, thinks he knows the feeling is mutual and therefore doesn’t butter him up as her two sisters do.  He vainly falls for the adulation of the two, cuts out the one he loves the most, and gives his estate to the manipulative sisters. He alternates staying with the two winners who treat him badly. As he grows more addled, he is left a vagrant.  Too late he realizes his mistake in favoring the two manipulative sisters but he cannot correct it because his beloved youngest daughter dies.

One of those who stays loyal to Lear is the Earl of Gloucester, who muses in a late section of the play, “’Tis the times’ plague when mad men lead the blind.”

Writer Lawrence Noel interprets the line this way:

The time’s plague refers to it being a problem of the time or era. Referring to it as a plague suggests that it spreads widely and quickly. We might even think of it as being contagious.

Blind people relied on others for guidance, especially in unfamiliar territory. Madmen are insane and cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy.

Putting those elements together suggests that the audience is being told that one of the problems of the time is that those who must trust others to provide them with safe passage in the world are being led by those who do not see the world clearly or in its own state of reality, even for themselves.

As an excerpt, it reflects an attitude about the nature of politics that resonates with modern readers and playgoers in that faith in the clarity of our political leaders’ vision of the world has suffered some setbacks of late. They may assure the common people that we are blind to the realities which only they can see and so we must accept their leadership if we want to go anywhere new. If the leader’s visions are distorted or unhealthy, we are likely to suffer for them.

“When mad men lead the blind.”  The line is sometimes misquoted but that’s what Shakespeare wrote.

Writer and playwright Charlotte Ahlin, who was raised by two Shakespearean actors, has written, “His plays are surprisingly (and sometimes upsettingly) still relevant to our daily lives.” Some of the reactions to the hush money verdict verify her contention.

Many of our political leaders or political leader-wannabes are (in some cases) disappointing us in accusing the Biden justice system of persecuting our former president strictly for partisan political purposes and encouraging the public to ignore that the supposedly weaponized Justice Department is prosecuting two members of Biden’s party—Senator Bob Menendez and Congressman Henry Cuellar, AND that a holdover Trump appointee in the Justice Department is prosecuting Presidential Son Hunter Biden.

The hypocrisy—-

The depth of the betrayal of their integrity—

Their lack of political courage—-

Their disregard for the title of “public servant” that they have sacrificed in pursuit of power—

are appalling.

The damage they are doing to public confidence in one of the most important institutions that define the United States as an example of a republican democracy—a trial by a jury of one’s peers—seems to mean nothing to them.  They are willing to become hostages to the political whims of a man of a kind they likely would not want their daughters to marry. They kowtow to a king who demands to be flattered.

They are gladly capitalizing on leading the blind—the people who don’t know and don’t want to think—in a concerted effort to let our former president hold on to power regardless of the damage he has openly announced he will do.

Listen again to what many of them said about him after January 6.

Listen again to what many of them said about him in their presidential primary campaigns, brief though they were.

Listen to what he has said about them or about members of their families.

Look at the list of those who he promised in 2016 to hire (only “the best people”) for his administration and count the number who have faced criminal charges/financial ruin or jail sentences for their loyalty—or who have written books exposing his machinations.

No president in all of American history has had so many books by his once-closest associates written about his personal and politica l failings.

And wonder why those who are now attacking our legal system as weaponized and corrupt feel they have to read from the script (look for words such as “witch hunt” or “banana republic”) he peddles on social media or during obsequious interviews.

And then, ask yourself this:

Have you ever served on a jury or do you know anyone who has?

This bunch is suggesting the people such as you and your friends, who assumed the responsibility as jurors in his recent trial, somehow connived with the Justice Department to politically persecute this man who has openly claimed to be above the law. Anyone who has been on a jury, or who has been called for consideration to be on a jury, should be insulted by what these bed partners of the now-convicted felon are saying.

If Donald Trump was treated unfairly in his trial, it was the fault of his attorneys and, perhaps himself; there are a lot of people who say the lawyers crafted their defense of him at least partly because of his demands.

He had his chance to claim in court what he loves to claim outside of the court. As he has in the past, he said at the start of the trial that he would love to testify.  But in the end, he chickened out. Again.  He could have told his side of the story but, as he has done in the past, he did not.

—-Because he would have had to take an oath to tell the truth and he is incapable of doing so.

His lawyers helped pick the jury. To refresh your memory, here’s the kind of people they were, thanks to a compilation by NBC News.

Juror 1: A man who lives in West Harlem and works in sales. He is married, likes to do “anything outdoorsy,” and gets news from The New York Times, Fox News and MSNBC.

Juror 2: A man who works in investment banking, follows Twitter as well as Truth Social posts from Trump and said, “I don’t have any beliefs that might prevent me from being fair or impartial.”

Juror 3: A young man who has lived in Chelsea for five years, works as an attorney in corporate law, and likes to hike and run. He gets news from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Google.

Juror 4: A man who’s a security engineer and likes woodworking and metalworking.

Juror 5: A young woman who is a Harlem resident and works as a teacher. She lives with her boyfriend, loves writing, theater and traveling. She gets news from Google and TikTok and listens to podcasts on relationships and pop culture.

Juror 6: A young woman who lives in Chelsea and works as a software engineer. She gets news from The New York Times, Google, Facebook and TikTok.

Juror 7: A man who lives on the Upper East Side and works as attorney as a civil litigator. He enjoys spending time in the outdoors and gets his news from The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the Washington Post.

Juror 8: A man who’s retired but worked for a major wealth manager. He said he enjoys skiing, fly fishing and yoga.

Juror 9: A woman who is a speech therapist, gets news from CNN and likes reality TV podcasts.

Juror 10: A man who works in commerce, reads The New York Times and listens to podcasts on behavioral psychology.

Juror 11: A woman who works as a product development manager and watches late-night news and reads Google, business and fashion news.

Juror 12: A woman who is a physical therapist who likes running and tennis and listening to podcasts on sports and faith.

Alternate 1: A woman who works as an asset manager and likes to run, hang out with her friends and eat.

Pretty formidable list of persecutors who are tools of the Justice Department, don’t you think, especially since this trial was in a state court not a federal court where the Justice Department has a role?

The fact that it took this varied group only about eleven hours to unanimously convict our former president on every one of the THIRTY-FOUR charges speaks volumes for the strength of the case against him, the presentation of the evidence that supported all of those charges, and the inability of Trump and his lawyers to induce even one of the twelve to hang the jury.

There was nothing wrong with the justice system that day.

How strange it is that those sycophants, including several of our Missouri statewide candidates who also have swallowed gallons of the Trump Kool-Aid, to now expect a flawed justice system weaponized to get him and him alone to later exonerate a  president who tried during his own term to weaponize the Department of Justice.

Mad men. And some women leading “the blind,” people who don’t want to know but will blindly accept what they are told.  And the mad men are happy to lead them, happy to tell them.  And why?  Because they want power and lack the integrity to win it on their own standards.

They have, instead, attached themselves to arguably the least honest man in the country who spouts lies and lies and lies. And too many of our political leaders or leader wannabes are disgracing themselves in joining him in trying to disgrace those responsible citizens who fulfilled a sacred role in our society during his trial.

They have become dangerous in their service to an old king who thinks one-way loyalty is his privilege. They are the mad men.  We must not be blind to them.

Those who refuse to be blind can make sure they pay a price for their hypocrisy, their lack of integrity, honesty, and of courage when we vote in August and November.

 

All 34

Posted on by
Reply

My God!

The enormity of a jury’s verdicts in a New York courtroom yesterday is difficult to grasp whether one is strongly anti-Trump or whether one is violently pro-Trump.  Years from now, generations unborn today will read in their history books of yesterday’s verdict as cold fact with no way to understand the depth of the national emotions triggered by a jury ruling that a former President of the United States is guilty of 34 felonies.

Thirty-four.

The number will never be the same, just as 9-11 was transformed into something beyond  a numerical value, just as 1-6 is a waymark in American history.

Some hoped the jury would issue 34 NOT guily verdicts; many—perhaps most—thought at least SOME guilty verdicts would come.   But all 34?

It is stunning.  And although there will be appeals, it seems impossible that all 34 convictions will be reversed.

Donald Trump can and will—already has—repeated his attacks on the judge, the prosecutor, the jury.

But twelve people, chosen in the historically-honored system of picking a jury of fellow citizens, have convincted him of 34 crimes.

What must it be like away from his normal public bluster when this  77-year old man realizes  that for the first time in his life, he has not been able to control or to ignore the responsibility for his actions?  In the privacy of his own rooms and with his own thoughts, what must this overwhelming rebuke of the way he has run his life be doing to him?  He may rage in public and in private but surely he knows, deep down, many of those he has bent to his will are now realizing his blood is in the water and they must transform themselves into sharks for their own self-preservation.

The bus is waiting.  How many of those he thought he controlled will decide it’s time he is the one thrown under it?

Much is made that he is the first president to face criminal charges and now the first to be convicted, a statement though often repeated has no practical effect.  Once just a frequently-spoken statement, now it is a statement of national tragedy.

And what shall be done with him, this man who has flouted decency, honor, and the law throughout his life of self-seeking power?

If the convictions are upheld he should go to prison, whatever form prison takes.

Prison for Donald Trump could mean being cut off from public participation in events, to being relegated to a world without spotlight, a world of tightly-scheduled activities from waking up to eating a common menu, to being isolated from public exposure, restricted perhas to a couple of rooms at Mar-a-Lago where visitors are allowed only at certain times and certain days.  His greatest punishment could be imposed insignificance in contemporary times.

Yesterday was a day that instantly became history and we knew it the second we heard of the verdicts.  For both those who hoped for a different result as well as those who hoped for the result that came, yesterday was a “My God!” day.

Today we will try to grasp what has just happened, what we have experienced. Maybe for some of us as well as for him, it might take more than just today.

 

The Jontay Thing

Posted on by
Reply

Just as Monday’s entry was being written came news of the tragedy of Jontay Porter, the Columbia kid, ex-MU Tiger, fringe NBA player who is the first person permanently banned from the NBA since Jack Molinas was banned 71 years ago for betting on games he played with the Fort Wayne (now Detroit) Pistons.

The Porter case is of special interest not only because of his Missouri roots but also because Missourians might be deciding whether sports betting should be legalized in our state—and what that might mean to the confidence we have in our big-time sports teams and their games.

Alex Kirschner, writing for Slate.com says Porter “did things worse than anything Pete Rose ever got up to.”

Jeff Zilgitt of USA TODAY was equally unforgiving when he wrote, “In all of Jontay Porter’s idiocy, he provided a service to other professional athletes who might consider placing bets on games in which they are direct participants or in which they have insider knowledge to provide to gamblers. It’s almost impossible to pull it off in a world of legal, regulated and monitored gambling. It’s even more impossible when you’re as blatant as the NBA says Porter was.”

Kirschner  notes that sports leagues “make a lot of money off of people betting on their games…It’s a cash grab, yes.  But from the leagues’ perspective, it’s also a payment in exchange for tolerating certain risks. Sports leagues profit from betting but they are also terrified of it.” 

 Porter, he says, committed two sins and flirted with a third.  He disclosed privileged information to bettors and manipulated in-game outcomes. In Porter’s case, he took himself out of a game early so he would not meet projected performance levels.  The third circumstance that terrifies leagues, says Kirschner is outright throwing of games. “The single easiest way to threaten a league’s multibillion-dollar business is for people to doubt that they’re watching a game left to chance…If that goes, everything could go.

Porter is only 24 years old. Kirschner says his career is in the dumpster because he has been involved in the biggest betting scandal involving a player since sports wagering was legalized in this country in 2018. “If the Black Sox were a 10 on the scandal scale,” he writes, “Porter probably is a 6 or 7.”

Zilgitt darkly predicts this will happen again. “Someone always thinks they can beat the system, and maybe someone can but not Jontay Porter and his simple attempt at trying to make extra money. It’s inevitable, just as it was inevitable it happened in the first place.” Porter, who has spent most of his pro career in the NBA’s minor league, was being paid $410,000 this year to play for the NBA’s Toronto Raptors. The league investigation says he made $22,000 on the bets he placed on the game from which he removed himself, claiming illness.

The “idiocy” that Ziglitt attributes to Porter is explained by Kirschner who writes that the kid used the gambling companies that partner with the pro leagues to place his bets—-and those bets are monitored by the leagues. “If Porter were collaborating with underground bettors and bookies, his activity would have gone undetected,” he wrote.

In Kirschner’s view, pro sports teams are just asking for this kind of problem.  Sports wagering companies are aggressively advertising their “services,” leading to greatly expanding participation in betting. He bluntly observes, “A bigger pool of bettors means a bigger pool of potential crooks. In a subtle but real way, the NBA courted the Porter scandal.”

Pro sports leagues fought against sports wagering until the U. S. Supreme Court legalized it nationwide in 2018.  Once it was legalized, the leagues had no choice but to get in bed with the betting industry.  Pessimists might be forgiven for wondering if they’ll stay on their separate sides of the bed.

And whose reputation is damaged by this scandal?  Not the gaming industry.  It’s sports and those who play them.  A player has been banished for life. Pro sports worries whether its fans think its product is genuine and honest.

Zilgitt quotes NBA Commissioner Adam Silver saying the Porter case “raises important questions about the sufficiency of the regulatory framework currently in place, including the types of bets offered on our games and players.” Zilgitt notes Silver has advocated federal regulation of sports wagering and suggests outlawing or limiting certain kinds of bets.

Not considered by either columnist is what role state regulatory agencies can play or should play in terms of disciplinary actions against casinos that handle such bets or wagering companies that process them. In this case, the hammer has fallen on the player, deservedly so, but those who took, paid, and processed his bets appear to be facing no penalties.

Missouri’s pro sports teams are gathering signatures to get a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment legalizing sports wagering.

The proposal mirrors bills introduced in this year’s legislative session that grievously disadvantage the state and the programs that rely on gambling income for their budgets.  The Missouri Gaming Commission has warned that the legislation pushed at the Capitol by gaming interests does not raise enough revenue for the commission to adequately regulate sports wagering. Nor does it do anything to punish the betting industry that produced the measley $22,000 that Porter won.

“Measley,” as in how little he gained compared to how much he has thrown away.

The Porter scandal is a tragedy for him and for sports in general.  How will Missouri voters see the issue now that one of our own has become a self-induced victim of a system we are being asked to approve?  He might be the first but nobody expects he will be the last.

If Missourians approve the proposition, will they also undermine trust in the games that they love?  How many Porters are needed before we wonder about every missed free throw, every error, every missed tackle, every overthrown pass, every wide shot on goal?

(If you want to read the full articles on which we’ve based two entries):

Jontay Porter NBA betting scheme is a lesson in stupidity (usatoday.com)

Athletes beware: Jontay Porter NBA betting scheme is a lesson in stupidity (msn.com)

One Man’s Vision—2

Posted on by
Reply

Jefferson City’s hopes of turning the old penitentiary into a major redevelopment project are in danger. City officials have for many years pinned many of their hopes for a mid-city rennaiscance to the state’s preservation, restoration, and redevelopment of the prison and dozens of acres of land controlled by he city inside the old walls.

Jefferson City leaders must aggressively overturn an effort by the House of Representatives Budget  Committee to eliminate $52.3 million from the state budget that Governor Parson recommended in January and another $40 million he wants set aside for later preservation and restoration work.

It is essential if a downtown convention center is to be more than a stand-alone project that misses the chance to bring about greater transformational change for our city from Madison and Capitol for the next seven blocks to the east.

The plan has been promoted as putting the old place in shape for expanded tourism attraction.  But the issue is far more important than that.  It is only one part of a much greater future for a major part of the Capital City and, it can be argued, is part of a package of developments that is highlighted by the expansion of the Capitol itself.

The Capitol and the penitentiary are bookends of our city’s historic, cultural, economic, and ethnic past, present, and future.  In fact, the penitentiary is a major reason this city continued to exist for the first eighty-five years as the seat of state government, a development that curtailed the efforts to end the City of Jefferson’s political history before it had hardly begun.

Jefferson City was a tiny, dirty/muddy, little frontier village, the worst of the three possible locations for a permanent capital, when Governor John Miller told the legislature in 1832 it had to do something to create an economy for the city or take the government elsewhere:

If t is not to be the permanent seat of government, that fact cannot be too soon made known, while on the other hand if it is to remain as such, it is advisable that those measures which would advance its prosperity, should be taken with the least possible delay. Some of the principle streets are from the nature of tne ground impassable. It is therefore respectfully recommended that an appropriation be made for grading and otherwise improving,them. The erection of a penitentiary here, the necessity and utility which cannot be doubted, would contribute in a great degree to calm the public mind in relation to th« permanent location of the seat of government.

 The penitentiary, for many years well outside the city limits, today is the link between the water company overlooking the river on the hill west of Bolivar Street to Ellis Porter/Riverside Park and its recently-restored amphitheatre on the east. It’s an area that swells to include Dunklin Street that runs through the heart of Munichberg and continues to and past the entrance to Lincoln University before turning back toward the river at Clark Avenue.

For many years, the tall standpipe at the water company,  the capitol dome, and the smokestacks of prison industries were parts of our skyline.

That area has been, is, and will be the heart of our city.

One Budget Committee member called the restoration “the stupidest idea I’ve heard all day,” and another said it was not a place she would take her grandchildren. Another opposes the idea of making a tourist attraction out of the suffering of thousands of inmates.

It’s time for these folks to hear, loudly, from city leaders that they are flat wrong on several counts.

There’s plenty of time and ways to get that money put back into the budget but Jefferson City needs to become very aggressive in making the case that these committee members are just flat wrong. Thirty thousand people a year don’t think the prison is stupid. A lot of grandchildren have gone through it. And the suffering of inmates is an important part of the reason our national history of corrections has undergone massive change. The prison is a great example of showing how our past can guide us to the future.

Alcatraz is not too gruesome to draw 1.5-million people a year. Nor is the old Eastern State Prison in Philadelphia, which draws 350-thousand. Nor are at least a dozen restored prisons and jails throughout the nation.

Jefferson City cannot allow the short-sightedness of these representatives to prevail.

In a city where you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a lobbyist, it wouldn’t hurt if they had enough interest in their town to speak up for it voluntarily and help get that money back. And asking the governor to step in would not be improper.

Jefferson City must fight for the restoration of this funding not just because the old prison is a tourism draw but because of its potential for significant other developments that will take advantage of a large plot of available land in the heart of the city. What prison restoration can mean to Jefferson City’s core redevelopment is part of the vision of making a good city a great one.

The prison is more than an old, miserable lockup.  It is one of the most important historical structures still standing in Missouri, a massive learning experience for all who visit it, even grandchildren. Going through it is a matter of going through several eras in the history of crime, punishment, and justice in Missouri.

You want to know how bad things were?  Take a tour. You want to know how things changed?  Take a tour. The stories you hear from guides are intensely human. Calling the prison a tourist attraction, in fact, cheapens the prison as a teaching and learning experience.

We can concede that there are those who don’t think the public should see this institution that focuses on the worst of our society.  But ignoring the worst does not make us better.  Crime is here.  Prisons are here.  Refusing to acknowledge their presence, their purposes, or the changing standards that they represent in our history is unrealistic.

Thousands of men and women went into that “bloodiest 47 acres in America” and came out to live peaceful lives. Understanding the world where they were sent and from which they emerged is important.  Making a tourist attraction out of the suffering of thousands of inmates?  It’s much more than that.

The decision by our city leaders to abandon the old penitentiary as the potential site for a convention center and hotel is a welcome, solid, decision. The plan to put the hotel/center in the prison seemed to be a good idea about a decade ago but nothing developed other than a few lines on paper. It was correct for the previous city administration to bring this long-ignored opportunity back to the public mind and to keep it there. But it is not unusual for first concepts to fall by the wayside as time shows their weaknesses.

I was the President of the State Historical Society of Missouri when we opened our $37-million Center for Missouri Studies about five years ago. It is far beyond what we imagined it would be in the first stages of our planning and it is not on our first choice of location.  But the leaders of our society never once conceded that we could not do what we wanted to do. Our only question was, “How do we do this?”

That characteristic, when applied to cities, is what elevates good cities to great cities.  Do not tell me we can’t do something; explain to me how we can.

What happens with the penitentiary now that it is available for new development is a major factor in Jefferson City’s move from a good city to a great city.  As we explore one man’s vision in this series, details will emerge.

We’ll talk about our vision for the penitentiary later. But for now, the priority must be action that will preserve the penitentiary for its own value to the public while creating an improved opportunity for the city to take steps toward greatness within it.

(photo credit: Missouri American Water Company)

 

Languages

Posted on by
Reply

I am proud to say that I passed three out of four semesters of college French courses.

That means I am, or once was, somewhat fluent in TWO more languages than our most recent former president uses.

The latest nonsense to cascade in a disorderly tumble from his lips adds an additional damnation to immigrants who, he has claimed, “are coming from jails, and they’re coming from prisons, and they’re coming from mental institutions, and they’re coming from insane asylums, and they’re terrorists.”

Of course, he never offers any proof of such things.  Now, during that same visit to an area near Eagle Pass, Texas on the southern border, he is piling on:

“Nobody can explain to me how allowing millions of people from places unknown, from countries unknown, who don’t speak languages. We have languages coming into our country. We have nobody that even speaks those languages. They’re truly foreign languages. Nobody speaks them, and they’re pouring into our country, and they’re bringing with them tremendous problems, including medical problems, as you know.”  He has asserted in a previous rant that when one migrant showed u, “We don’t even have one translator who could understand this language.”

Various media outlets, including the once-chummy FOX News Channel,  jumped all over that disjointed estrangement from reality, one of the fact-checkers being CNN’s Daniel Dale who found the comment about a translator, “nonsense,” and said it had been “conjured out of thin air.”

The former president says people such as Dale shouldn’t taken him so seriously. He told Sean Hannity recently, “You take a look at when I use Barack Hussein Obama and I interject him into where it’s supposed to be Biden, and I do it purposely for comedic reasons and for sarcasm.”

Whew!   That’s a relief.  I hope all of his MAGA friends realize he’s just pulling their legs and don’t bother repeating his fun-loving remarks as serious messages.

About those languages that nobody speaks:

Analyst Philip Bump with The Washington Post wrote last week that the former president’s remarks were “remarkable” and proved again that “there is no limit on the fearmongering Donald Trump will deploy when it comes to the U.S.-Mexican border.”

Bump points out that there’s a CIA database that includes the spoken languages of more than 220 places.  Here’s an interesting statistic he cites from that database:  Canada, which has two official languages (English and French) “has a higher percentage of English speakers than the United States has of people who speak only the language.”  He says only about seven percent of our population speaks something other than English or Spanish.

Bu contrast, about 30% of Canadians speak French. About 16% of Canadians use both languages.  Four percent speak Chinese. Three percent speak Spanish with an equal amount speaking Punjabi. Arabic, Tagalog, and Italian are spoken by two percent each.

The truth, he says, is that “fewer people speak less frequently-spoken languages. Therefore, those people are less likely to arrive at the U.S.-Mexican border. If they did so, though, there seem to be good odds that someone within the federal government (much less the broader population would be able to understand what they’re saying.”

On top of that, the State Department has translators in some 140 languages or combinations of languages. “The CIA, meanwhile, has an incentive program to encourage people who speak particular languages to work with them. If you speak Baluchi (spoken in Oman) or Ewe (Togo and Ghana) or Lingala (both Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo), ping your local CIA recruiter. There’s cash in it for you.”

As far as immigrants being criminals or more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans—as the ex-President claimed in his Texas speech, Terry Collins wrote this week in USA Today that research indicates immigrants “actually commit fewer crimes than people born in the U. S.”

Trump and his supporters are quick to capitalize on a serious crime committed by an undocumented immigrant, such as the high-profile murder in Georgia.

But Collins points to the work of immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh with the Cato Institute, a self-described “Libertarian think tank,” who says, ‘The findings show pretty consistently undocumented and illegal immigrants have a lower conviction rate and are less likely to be convicted of homicide and other crimes overall compared to native-born Americans in Texas.”

“They’re coming from jails and they’re coming from prisons and they’re coming from mental institutions and they’re coming from insane asylums and they’re terrorists,” Trump said in Eagle Pass.

He clearly has never heard of Nowrasteh, whose studies of undocumented immigrants from 2012-2022 show undocumented immigrants have a homicide rate fourteen percent under that of native-born citizens and a 41% lower total conviction rate. Legal immigrants have a 62% lower homicide rate

He told Collins, “I don’t think that Trump’s statements accurately convey the reality of immigration.”

The problem with all of this is that a lot of Americans are buying what the ex-president is selling.  The Pew Research Center, in a survey a few weeks ago, found that 57% of Americans think immigration leads to more crime.

Here’s some more research reported by Collins:

Stanford University Economics Professor Ran Abramitzky’s research shows the rates of crimes committed by immigrants in this country have been lower than those committed by native-born Americans. Incarceration rates have been dropping for the last six decades.  Nowrasteh says there’s a powerful reason for that: “Deportation is a hefty penalty, as being removed and sent back to their home country where they have fewer job and quality of life opportunities is enough to scare most immigrants.”

As far as criminals crossing the border in droves—-

The Border Patrol checks for criminal backgrounds before releasing them to enter this country, pending a hearing. The Patrol arrested more than 15,000 people with criminal records at the border last year, three-thousand more than in ’22.  So far this year, the number is more than 5,600.

Responsible people who know what they are talking about know that our border is not a sieve that leaks insane criminals who have been released from prisons throughout the world to come here and “poison” our country. It is not to our credit that we would listen to an irresponsible monolingual figure who hopes we drink HIS poison instead.

RIPPLES  

Posted on by
Reply

A Michigan jury recently convicted the mother of a 15-year old school shooter of involuntary manslaughter.

The issue was whether Jennifer Crumbley had any responsibility for her son’s murder of four students in 2021.  She was accused of gross negligence because she failed to tell school officials the family had guns, including a 9 mm handgun that son Ethan used on a shooting range the weekend before the attack. The charges said she had a duty under Michigan law to keep Ethan from harming others, of failing to secure a gun and ammunition, and failing to get her some mental health help.

The morning of the shooting, Ethan’s parents were summoned to the school after staff members had seen a violent drawing of a gun, bullet, and a wounded man along with “desparate phrases” on his math assignment.  The parents did not take him home and not long afterwards, the boy pulled a gun out of his backpack and shot ten fellow students and a teacher. For students were killed. The gun was he same 9mm pistol his father had bought with him and that he had practiced with on the shooting range.  She said she had seen no signs of mental problems with her son and that it was her husband’s job, not hers, to keep track of the gun. Father James Crumbley goes on trial later in March.

Ethan, now 17, is in prison for life. His journal complains, “I have zero help for my mental problems.”

This is a landmark legal case.  The Crumbleys are the first parents in this country to be held criminally liable for the killings their children commit.  We’ll be watching to see what ripples might flow from Michigan to other states when other mass shootings happen.  The shooter might not always be the only one held responsible. And what changes in laws might that threat bring about?

We wonder what kind of ripples will be caused by by the Michigan approach of filing negligence against parents for the crimes of their children.  We wonder if any of OUR state’s prosecutors would go after Missouri parents when such an incident happens here.

The Centers for Disease Control, etc., say Missouri is ninth in gun deaths and is ranked by Everytown for Gun Safety 38th in gun law strength

The legislature has gone to extremes at times “defending” Second Amendment rights. Case in point: A 2021 law banning the state from enforcing any federal laws the state thinks infringe on those rights. The U. S. Supreme Court threw out that law as unconstitutional last fall.

A few state lawmakers spoke out against the states laissez-fare attitude about gun violence.  But others have sidestepped any serious thought about it, admitting only—in effect, “Yes, it’s a problem.”  Or sidestepping the other way by saying, “It’s not a gun problem; it’s a mental health problem” and then puttiing little or no emphasis on dealing with that mental health problem.

But Missouri prosecutors might learn from the Michigan experience—filing negligence charges against those who should have known better than to let a friend, a relative, or a child have access to a gun and bullets if that person is known to be troubled.

It’s a small thing.  But it might be a way to bring about some justice in a high-murder state with seemingly little interest from the political powers-that-be to do anything meaningful about it.

 

Now, Wait A Minute!!

Posted on by
Reply

We are intrigued by the Trumpists who think our former president was correct when he said now-retired Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley should be executed for treason because he called his Chinese counterpart in the crazy post-January 6 days of the Trump administration to assure him that the United States was not planning an attack on China.

Trump called the conversation “treason,” writing on his (un)Truth Social page, “This guy turned out to be a woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the Prsident of the United States. This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH. A war between China and the United States could have been the result of this treasonous act.”

The statement is remarkable because Trump seems to give credence to reporting by those he considers “fake news media.” But such self-contradictions within his constant self-aggrandizing verbal disgorgements are always expected.

Many observers warn that this typical Trump rant is another call for violence by his supporters and is an example of why his re-election would be perilous for our Democratic Republic. While reporters who interviewed several Trumpists in Iowa, where he recently campaigned found some willing to cut Milley some slack, one seemed to voice the common temper of the larger MAGA cult: “Why was he not in there before a firing squad within a month?”

As long as the Trumpists are asking THAT question—

There’s another question that nobody we have heard of has asked Trump. And if anybody does, we know the answer will be a doozy.

The question is this:

If it was treason for Milley to assure the Chinese that there were no plans for an attack—-

WERE THERE PLANS FOR AN ATTACK?

Well, Donny?

1,078

Posted on by
Reply

Heather Cox Richardson is a history professor at Boston College whose “Letters from an American” daily Substack newsletter place contemporary events within a historical context. USA Today named her one of its Women of the Year honorees last  year.

Joyce Vance is a former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and now a Distinguished Visiting Lecturer in Law (criminal justice reform, criminal procedure, and civil rights are her specialties) at the University of Alabama School of Law.

We are borrowing from a couple of things they wrote when our immediately former president was arraigned on criminal charges on August 3.

Donald Trump is charged with crimes linked to the January 6, 2021 events at the United States Capitol.  Richardson cites the federal prosecutor for Washington D. C. is observing that Trump is the 1,078th person charged with federal crimes connected to those events. And he was arraigned in the same courtroom where many of those 1,077 others have appeared, or will appear.

She also cites Yale history professor Timothy Snyder, responding to defense claims that the charges infringe on Trump’s constitutionally-protected right to free speech even if his remarks were repeated lies.  The charges, however, appear not to attack his free speech remarks but instead focus on the greater issue of his illegal efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election.

Snyder thinks we should not be distracted from the real point of the charges: “That Trump will be tried for his coup attempt is not a violation of his rights. It is the fulfillment of his rights.  It is the grace of the American republic. In other systems, when your coup attempt fails, what follows is not a trial.”

We would add that in most failed coup attempts we have read about in our long life, what follows is a quick assumption of guilt and often a quick dispatching of what is called justice.

Richardson also notes in that day’s “letter,” that the arraignment took place on the same days that Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released a transcript of their interview with a Hunter Biden business associate that GOP committee members claim proves then Vice-President Biden was personally involved in some shady business deals involving Hunter.  She says the interview transcript undermines the Republicans’ claims although they’re overlooking that issue.

(If you want to read Richardsons full “letter,” you can find it at:

August 3, 2023 – by Heather Cox Richardson (substack.com)

Joyce Vance’s column, “Civil Discourse” says that, “Many people…have become inured to Trump’s behavior…A real problem with Trump is that there is just so much of it that he is exhausting. For some people it is easier to tune it out than it is to try to keep all of it in focus.”  But she says the people need to re-connect and follow the process by which these charges are dealt with “so they can assess the evidence and the proceedings for themselves…It is every American’s obligation to follow this process.”

One subtle thing she mentions is that in court, the former president is just “Mr. Trump,” a designation that applies generally to (male) trial participants.  No matter what your station is life is, or has been, you are equal in the eyes of the law to every other person who has gone through this process…Donald Trump was treated like anyone else in his position would be. Investigation having found that there is sufficient evidence of significant crimes, he has been charged by a grand jury. He now has the same opportunity to defend himself that anyone would have.”

She explains that, “Arraignment is usually a perfunctory matter, as it was for Trump… It is governed by Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that a defendant be advised of the charges against him and enter a plea to them. The traditional plea at the time of arraignment is one of not guilty. The defendant has not yet seen the government’s evidence against him—there is no informed basis for knowing whether the government can prove what it has charged. So it is no surprise that the plea Donald Trump entered…was one of not guilty.”

But this arraignment has an unusual twist, she says. While judges normally tell the defendants not to commit any new crimes while they are free on the streets, this instruction was different. The judge warned Trump not to try to influence a juror or witnesses.  If he violates that admonition, he could find himself sleeping on government-issues sheets at night and wearing government-issued clothes.

Was Trump listening to the Judge’s admonition?  Vance thinks he wasn’t. A day after he was released on pre-trial bond, Trump went on Truth Social and said, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

Vance says  on X (the former Twitter) that Trump crossed the line. “Free speech is one thing, but this is over the line. As a prosecutor, I’d be sorely tempted tomake a motion to removke Trump’s pre-trial bond and put him in custody. Let him explain it to the judge.”

Newsweek reports that Trump spokesperson has belittled Vance as “a moron (who) loses sleep because she has Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

So, apparently, does former prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, the former lead prosecutor against former Trump aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, who says—in what until recently would be called a tweet—“Not addressing this will only cause it to metastasize with undue deadly risks.”

A Trump spokesman, not surprisingly, defended the threat as “the definition of political speech,” and then went into full Trump irrational rant, saying it “was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for Growth.”

Forget getting out the hip boots, folks. It’s so deep that you’ll need a full body suit.

Friday night, assistants to federal prosecutor Jack Smith filed a notice with U. S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan expressing concerns Trump might improperly share evidence in the case on Truth Social. They urged the judge to order Trump to keep any evidence given to his lawyers by the prosecutors away from public view.

The judge ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond by 5 p.m. today.  When they asked for a three-day extension, she refused to let them have it—which set off another Trump tantrum aimed directly at the judge—not a wise thing even from a self-proclaimed stable genius:  “There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge ‘assigned’ to the ridiculous Freedom of Speech/Fair Elections case. Everybody knows this, and so does she!”  It was all in capital letters, followed by more capitals announcing plans to seek a new judge and a new location for the trial.

We will be watching to see if the old saying manifests itself—Don’t poke a tiger with a twig.

The prosecution says it wants a speedy trial. Normally it’s the defendant that wants a speedy trial. But in this case, it’s to Mr. Trump’s political advantage to stretch the process as far as possible.

Both Richardson and Vance believe the most important charge against Trump is the final one—the one Vance says “tears at my heart….the conspiracy by an American president to take awy our right to vote…and to have one’s vote counted.”

Vance concludes that a dozen people in the courtroom will decide Trump’s fate but all of us are a “jury in the court of public opinion.”

“The outcome of the 2024 election really is every inch the most important election of our lives. The indictment itself is not evidence, but it lays out the narrative of the facts we saw unfold before our eyes and helps us make sense of the crimes that Trump is charged with committing. It is an important document for every American to read. Not everyone will, but that’s where we can come in, sharing details, and helping people around us, understand the procedures that begin today. It’s the real work of saving the republic.”

You can read her full Civil Discourse insights at Arraignment – Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance (substack.com)

Federal court rules do not allow live broadcast coverage of trials. But the standard is a rule, not a law and the exigent circumstances of this case, which will be a transcendant event in American history and will involve questions basic to the survival of our republic, should create an exception to the rule so that all of us canbe witnesses to these evens. It is of such overwhelming importance that our grandchildren’s grandchildren should be able to see and hear how our generation responded to this crisis.

We agree that the 2024 election will be “the most important election of our lives.”  It is far more important to all of us and to our nation as a whole that all of us pay close attention to the truth that emerges in the trial of 1708 than it is to give heed to anything the interpreters of that testimony on the left and the right want us to think.

 

 

 

Was it a Lynching?

Posted on by
Reply

(Before we dive into this story, we ask our readers to please go back to Monday’s entry which required a major correction of information that incorrectly stated the position of a prominent former political leader from Missouri.)

Nancy and I went to Salisbury a few days ago where I had been asked to speak to the Chariton County Historical Society.

What happened during that speech is a reminder of something James Baldwin said: “History is not the past. History is the present. We carry our history with us. To think otherwise is criminal.”

William Faulkner said in a similar vein, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Those are great quotations in today’s turbulent political times when it seems we have people who want us to ignore some of the lamentable events of years gone by—shadows of some of which remain present among us.

Whenever I speak to a county historical society I like to spend a day at the State Historical Society going through the newspapers that have been published in that county. We have 60-million pages of newspapers on microfilm so a huge amount of local history is within each spool of microfilm.

Folks are regularly surprised when I tell them how many newspapers have been published in their county. In Chariton County’s case, there have been 31.  I pull random reels of microfilm and spool a reel through a reader and start looking for random news accounts or advertisements that are informative and sometimes amusing but say a little something about that particular time and place.

I have wondered if any of the people in my audience are learning something about one of their ancestors—but until the visit to Chariton County I had never heard from anyone connected to one of the stories.

Sometimes, the news article I choose is difficult to hear.  Such is the case of a 1917 article in The Rothville Bee, that began, “The body of a negro, apparently dead about ten to twelve days, with limbs tied and wrapped in barb wire, was found in the Missouri River below Brunswick Sunday of last week. The body was later identified as being that of William Wilson of Brunswick…Examination disclosed a bullet wound through the heart and a scalp wound, indicating that the negro was murdered.”

The historical society had more people watching the presentation on its streaming internet feed than it had room for in the museum (which, by the way, is an outstanding county history museum, and they’re expanding). A few days after the speech I got an email from one of those viewers:

“One of the news articles you read was from the Brunswick newspaper regarding a man found in the river by the name of Bill Wilson, I think this is about my grandfather.  I would love to visit with you about the article and see if we can uncover anything additional regarding his murder.”  

I couldn’t provide him with anything more than I had because the article had been picked randomly but I did give him the names of several newspapers in the county that might have had follow-up articles and several from surrounding counties since the body had been found in the Missouri river.  And I suggested some courthouse records he might check—if they still existed 106 years after the fact.

But I cautioned him he might not find much because Chariton County, just before the Civil War, had a population that was about 25% enslaved.  And 1917 in Missouri was a time when the Klan was active. The murder of a Black man might not have elicited the kind of investigation a white man’s murder might have created.

Last week, I was back at the Center for Missouri Studies for a meeting and I built in some extra time to run down the original newspaper article.  The Rothville Bee had reprinted a story from the Brunswick Brunswicker that I discovered originally had been published in the Salisbury Press-Spectator. Each iteration had a difference of small details.  The the original story concluded with a discouraging but not unexpected comment:

“There seems to be no special interest in the matter as the negro’s reputation was bad.”

So it will, indeed, be surprising if there are any follow-up stories. Why was his reputation bad?  That might be hidden in reports generated by the sheriff or the coroner or the county prosecutor—-if they still exist and if they went into any detail, which seems remote.  Family legend might give some hints.

The State Archives, which has thousands of death certificates from 1910 onward has no death certificate for William Wilson of Chariton County in 1917.  The archives of the state penitentiary show no William Wilson who matches the timeline or the description of this man so we don’t think his “bad reputation” was so bad as to merit prison time.

The Chariton County Prosecuting Attorney at the time was Roy B. McKittrick who later was elected to the Missouri Senate and, with the backing of Kansas City political boss Tom Pendergast, was elected Attorney General.  He turned on Pendergast and teamed with Governor Lloyd Stark and with U. S. Attorney Maurice Milligan to break the Pendergast organization. Pendergast eventually went to federal prison for tax evasion. They also broke up a major scandal in the state insurance department and sent Pendergast crony R. Emmett O’Malley, the state insurance superintendent, to federal prison for tax fraud. McKittrick and several other Democrats were involved in an effort to keep Republican Forrest Donnell from assuming the governorship in 1940.  He ran against Donnell in 1944 for the U.S. Senate but lost. He lost a race for governor to Forrest Smith in 1948.  He died in 1961 and the story of the investigation of the murder of William Wilson seems to have died with him.

Harriett C. Frazier, in her book, Lynchings in Missouri 1803-1981,  says there were at least 227 cases of “mob murder’ in Missouri during that time. The Equal Justice Initiative has counted sixty African-Americans who were lynched, 1877-1950  The archives at Tuskeegee Institute says 53 Whites and 69 Blacks were lynched in Missouri between 1882-1968.

William Wilson’s name is not on any of those lists.  Should he be?  The fact that he was bound in barbed wire, shot, and thrown into the river with a weight tied to him points to a hardly routine killing.

But the event has been lost to history, recorded only (as far as we know) in old small-town newspapers in one of our smallest counties, and barely reported at that, more than a century ago.  Even family memories or family stories have had time to fade in the telling and re-telling.

—and the only thing we know about William Wilson is that he died a terrible death in 1917 and, it seems, nobody cared much about finding his killer(s).

More than a century after his murder, the United States Congress finally got around to declaring lynching a federal crime.  One of these days we’ll tell you about a Missouri Congressman who didn’t live to see the law that he pushed throughout his career finally adopted.