The little-known group that’s saving Ukraine

Politico

The little-known group that’s saving Ukraine

Lara Seligman and Paul McLeary – May 1, 2023

Efrem Lukatsky/AP Photo

RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany — When U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin brings together the defense chiefs of more than 40 nations here in southwest Germany each month, the hours-long gathering typically ends the same way: Celeste Wallander, the Pentagon’s head of international security affairs, calls on each participant to read out what weapons their nation is ready to donate to Ukraine.

It’s a question — perhaps the question — that will help determine Ukraine’s future more than a year following Russia’s invasion.

And it’s made the monthly closed-door grouping of leaders — known by the anodyne bureaucratic title of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group — an under-the-radar yet central force in equipping the Ukrainian military with everything from precision rockets to main battle tanks. It’s also helped the nation create an ad hoc yet astonishingly modern military that would be capable of outgunning some long-standing NATO members.

But on the sidelines of the group’s April 21 meeting in a cavernous, wood-paneled ballroom here at the American-run Ramstein Air Base, it was clear that staying united — which the group has succeeded at for more than a year — will be an increasing challenge.

A number of fissures have emerged recently in the group, particularly over whether and when to send Western fighter jets to Ukraine, and delays in certain weapons shipments — most pressingly, German and Spanish tanks. Meanwhile, the mass transfer of weaponry to Kyiv has left donor nations worried about their own stockpiles, and recent meetings have started to turn to the issue of NATO allies reequipping themselves as well as sustaining the weapons donated to Ukraine for the long haul.

“We have done a lot already in terms of the donations, but now the question is more on sustainability,” Esa Pulkkinen, the permanent secretary, or deputy, in Finland’s defense ministry, said as military leaders gathered at Ramstein last month.

“Besides supporting Ukraine, we also need to replenish our own stocks, right?” one European diplomat said.

Austin, Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley and Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov sit at a head table draped in white tablecloths, flanked by American and Ukrainian flags. Crystal chandeliers hang over their heads. Aides sip coffee and mingle in hushed voices on the sidelines.

The meeting starts, as always, with a battlefield update from the Ukrainians. The other members sit at two narrow tables perpendicular to the leaders’ table, forming three sides of an open rectangle. Each country is represented by a miniature flag next to its member’s microphone.

Austin leads the discussion, making opening and closing comments, but typically spends more time listening to the presentations. Wallander emcees, moving each presenter along. During the latest meeting, members devoted one 90-minute block to discussing sustainment and industrial base challenges; the entire meeting can last more than six hours.

The impetus for the Ramstein gatherings came about without fanfare early on in the conflict. While readying a secret trip to wartime Ukraine just a month after the Russian invasion, the people attending Austin’s daily 6:30 a.m. staff meeting on the third floor of the Pentagon — called a “policy op sync” and modeled off the twice-daily meetings he chaired during the Afghanistan evacuation — realized a major problem was brewing.

Kyiv had survived Russia’s initial onslaught, yet it was becoming clear that the U.S. and other countries would need to overcome past misgivings about arming Ukraine and commit for the long haul. In those early days, no one was coordinating the equipment that countries were quickly beginning to pledge, risking a serious miscalculation for the Western nations aiding Ukraine.

“I did a lot of phone calls talking to countries, ‘can you send this,’ and I think it was at that point that the idea developed that the secretary had, ‘no, we need to bring the key contributors to Ukraine together so we can understand what the scope of this is,’” said Wallander in an interview at the Pentagon.

Austin named it the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which met on April 26, 2022, at Ramstein. It was the meeting — which was conceived and planned in about a week’s time — that kick-started the process of saving Ukraine.

Although disputes do break out between the participants, the sniping typically stays outside the room — a remarkable feat that members say is due to Austin’s steady leadership, calm presence and deep military knowledge. Austin’s attention to bilateral relations — including always giving countries public credit for their donations — has won him credibility, according to officials involved in the Ramstein meeting.

POLITICO spoke to 17 people directly involved in the discussions for this story, many of whom were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door meetings.

Tensions brewing

The Ramstein meetings are typically scripted affairs, during which ministers read from prepared notes. But the orderly gatherings mask significant differences between the governments working to arm Ukraine. Eastern European countries such as Poland and Estonia have leaned forward in providing aid, while Germany and France often lag. The United States — specifically Austin — at times must straddle the two sides.

Meanwhile, Kyiv is constantly asking for more — and better — equipment. The ink was barely dry on the decision to send Abrams main battle tanks in January, for example, when Ukrainian officials renewed a push to receive F-16 fighter jets.

The fighter jet question is still a live issue, and the split between the various participants over whether to send Western warplanes was on display at the most recent Ramstein meeting. While Austin and other U.S. officials have been clear that they do not believe F-16s are necessary for the current fight, others say that the group is still debating the issue.

“There’s an ongoing discussion about also other types of jets,” said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, speaking to reporters on the balcony while participants stretched their legs during a break in the meeting.

Still, others seemed sure that Western jets will be heading to Kyiv at some point.

“Western fighters will be a part of the Western military integration of the Ukraine armed forces, whether the time is now or perhaps later,” Pulkkinen said.

President Joe Biden has at times called on Austin to use the Ramstein meeting to appeal to his counterparts directly to do more to help Ukraine. In January, after German Chancellor Olaf Scholz refused to send Leopard tanks without the U.S. first sending its own Abrams tanks, the president turned to Austin to make one final appeal to his brand-new German counterpart, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, at that month’s gathering.

Biden had reason to hope Austin could clinch a deal. Throughout the conflict, the defense secretary has consistently managed to turn his relationships into concrete aid for Ukraine. Early in the war, Austin personally brokered a deal with Slovakia’s defense minister for the eastern European country to send one of its Russian-made S-300 air defense systems, in exchange for the U.S. repositioning one of its Patriot missile systems to Slovakia.

But this time, Austin could not break through Berlin’s hesitation. Ultimately, Biden ended up greenlighting the Abrams, paving the way for Germany to send the Leopards.

Some nations are still frustrated with the slow pace of Berlin’s donations.

Germany should be “sending more weapons, sending more ammunition, and giving more money to Ukraine, because they are the richest and the biggest country by far,” Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki told POLITICO. He added that the Germans “were not as generous as they should have been” with Ukraine since the start of the war.

“Collectively we have to, and we can, do more. We all understand what is at stake,” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur told POLITICO at Ramstein. Referring to his own government, he said, “we have done a lot definitely.”

Despite differences between the various countries, participants said Austin’s consistency and attention to personal relationships keeps each gathering running smoothly and is the reason the members return to Ramstein time and again to discuss new ways to support Ukraine.

Canadian Defense Minister Anita Anand recalled how Austin encouraged her to donate some of Canada’s 82 Leopard 2 tanks. Parting with those tanks was “no small thing,” she said. Her personal relationship with Austin — who she calls a “constant gentleman” — was crucial in Ottawa’s decision to ultimately send four tanks.

“This is why we have to gather. This is why we have to come together and that’s to say why we have to help Ukraine,” Pevkur said.

But the tensions over the tank decision could foreshadow more angst in the months ahead as Ukraine continues to suck up billions in munitions. Replacing all of that takes time, planning and significant investments.

New challenges

The last several meetings of the Ukraine group have seen allies starting to think hard about how to find the money — and the industrial capacity — to replace the gear sent to battle the Russians.

“It still is the only effective format when it comes to coordination of deliveries but also of the needed materiel,” one senior European diplomat said. “Regardless [of] the differences in opinion.”

Plus, they need to wade through a thicket of parochial interests and find a way to do something even more difficult: jointly manufacture ammunition and other materiel as the war in Ukraine grinds on and individual production lines reach their breaking point.

Another divisive issue is how defense spending is split among allies. NATO’s annual report released in March showed that despite an entire year of pledging increased defense spending, only seven countries out of 30 have met the nine-year-old goal of spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense — two fewer countries than hit the mark in 2021.

Other trends have emerged at the Ramstein meetings that have also frustrated some participants. According to the two European diplomats, a handful of countries have consistently promised equipment that never seems to arrive but is recycled at each meeting with no timeline attached.

“They somehow never mention when that will happen, and then we have another Ramstein format happen and you are still claiming the same thing,” one of the officials said.

Despite these emerging fissures, sticking with Kyiv for the long haul has been a talking point for all NATO allies since the start of the war, and even with some delays in promised equipment, donations continue to flow over the border to Kyiv. And 14 months in, with new spring and summer offensives on the way, there has been no change in that rhetoric.

“We cannot let war fatigue in our societies and politics take hold,” Latvian Defense Minister Inara Murniece said while visiting Washington just before the latest Ramstein meeting. “We must grab this momentum and do everything possible to make the spring and summer Ukrainian offensive successful. We can’t lose this moment.”

Lili Bayer in Brussels contributed to this report.

Manchin’s ‘playing with fire’ — and some Democrats are tired of the drama

Politico

Manchin’s ‘playing with fire’ — and some Democrats are tired of the drama

Josh Siegel – May 1, 2023

Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/AP Photo

Sen. Joe Manchin is losing patience with his fellow Democrats over their signature climate law — and the feeling is mutual.

The West Virginia Democrat has spent weeks escalating his attacks on President Joe Biden’s implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping bill that Manchin helped write in a deal that stunned Washington last summer. Last week, he threatened to join Republicans in voting to repeal the law, as the House GOP is demanding in its legislation for raising the nation’s debt limit.

Manchin’s comment caught his caucus colleagues off guard, even if such a repeal would be a long shot in Congress. It came just as Biden was launching a reelection campaign that rests heavily on that legislation’s climate and health care provisions.

“That surprises me that he wants to repeal it. I think it’s one of his greatest accomplishments,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a close colleague of Manchin’s on the Energy Committee, in an interview.

The IRA is far less of a political bright spot for Manchin, whose potential reelection hopes are clouded by growing disapproval ratings in his home state, partly driven by his support for the law. Manchin has yet to announce whether he’s running, but a formidable challenger entered the West Virginia Senate race last week — GOP Gov. Jim Justice.

Manchin’s fellow Democrats understand that his reelection could determine whether they retain their slim 51-seat Senate majority in 2024. But they are also growing weary of his attacks against their marquee climate law — even if they’ve come to expect it and know there’s little they can do to change his mind. And his votes against Democratic policies and Biden nominees have already complicated his party’s agenda in the 51-49 Senate.

Some Democrats fear that Manchin’s criticisms will do real damage by confusing the public about one of the law’s most debated-provisions: its $7,500 tax credits for electric vehicles. He has accused the Treasury Department of violating the law by flouting strict provisions he wrote designed to force electric vehicles to be made in the U.S. with American-made parts.

“When you’re Joe Manchin it never hurts to be seen butting heads with the administration, but I think this is genuine umbrage over the fact Congressional intent seems pretty clear, even if the statutory construction left room for Treasury to maneuver,” said Liam Donovan, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell who previously worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “And given that he would not have been on board for the bill at all had this been the understanding, it reads as a personal betrayal.”

Democrats counter that the administration has been doing its best to balance the IRA’s competing goals of lowering the cost of electric vehicles while promoting U.S. manufacturing and jobs.

“Fifty of us agree that [boosting electric vehicle deployment] is a priority,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said in an interview. “The law is what it is. If he doesn’t like implementation he can run for president.”

Manchin in recent weeks has also joined Republicans in supporting resolutions they’ve brought up for a vote disapproving of the administration’s energy and environmental policies, most recently on Wednesday when he was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans in overturning an EPA regulation on emissions from heavy-duty trucks.

Manchin also co-sponsored Sen. Rick Scott‘s (R-Fla.) resolution to undo Biden’s suspension of solar power tariffs, which could come up for a vote this week after passing the House on a bipartisan basis Friday.

And Manchin, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, has also expressed his ire with the administration by torpedoing a series of Biden’s nominees, including Richard Glick to chair the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Laura Daniel-Davis, Biden’s pick for assistant Interior secretary for land and minerals management, and Gigi Sohn as a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

The White House has supported fossil fuel projects that Manchin has backed — angering environmentalists — including the Willow oil and Alaska LNG projects, as well as the Mountain Valley Pipeline that would deliver natural gas produced in West Virginia.

Manchin did not comment for this article, but his spokesperson Sam Runyon said his objections were because the administration had strayed from the intent of the bill.

“President Biden, then-Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer were in full agreement with Sen. Manchin that the IRA was an energy security bill and the legislative language is crystal clear,” she said. “The Administration continues to blatantly violate the law in an effort to replace Congressional intent with their own radical climate agenda that simply didn’t, and wouldn’t have, passed.”

Some Republicans have expressed sympathy for Manchin’s position.

“Is it playing with fire? Sure. Does Joe care? I don’t think so,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Manchin’s frequent legislative partner when she chaired the Energy Committee. “Good for him for calling the administration out.”

Murkowski noted that the climate law had been seemingly dead for most of last year until Manchin’s support allowed Democrats to pass it on a party-line vote. The law includes $369 billion in incentives for clean energy and electric vehicles, as well as health measures such as a cap on insulin costs for Medicare recipients.

“They made a deal with him,” Murkowski said. “And it was a hard deal and they wanted his vote, and they got it — at some political cost to him and he would admit that. And now [the Biden administration is] trying to rewrite the bill, or interpret in the way they wished they had been able to get it passed. That’s their problem.”

Manchin has repeatedly denounced Biden’s electric vehicle policies in recent weeks, including by announcing he would support Republican efforts in Congress to overturn EPA auto pollution rules designed to speed up EV adoption. He accused the administration of “lying to Americans with false claims about how their manipulation of the market to boost EVs will help American energy security.”

He repeated that theme in remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce April 18, saying, “I never wanted to give the electric vehicles 75-cents’ credit let alone $7,500.”

“Y’all broke the law,” Manchin later told Biden’s Energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, at a hearing April 20, accusing the administration of “liberalizing” its rollout of the tax subsidy to stimulate sales of electric vehicles — and warning that that approach could send money and jobs to China.

Republicans are eager to pounce on Democratic dissension over how the administration is executing the climate law. GOP lawmakers, who unanimously opposed the law, argue that it spends too much money and say its twin goals — quickly weaning the U.S. economy off fossil fuels while reducing reliance on China for clean energy technologies — are incoherent.

“Maybe he’s looked at it [the IRA] more deeply and realized it’s not what he thought it was,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Manchin’s GOP counterpart from West Virginia, said in an interview. “I can’t believe he would be that naïve. But who knows?”

But other Democrats say the administration is carrying out the law that Congress passed.

“Almost all of us who voted for this legislation and contributed to it wanted to supercharge EV sales,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) in an interview. “Clearly Sen. Manchin did not. He thought he was maybe sabotaging the EV industry. And it’s driving him nuts that it’s not working out that way.”

Negotiations over the EV tax credit were fraught from the start.

After Manchin rejected Democrats’ climate and social spending agenda last July when it was packaged as Build Back Better — Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer quietly resumed negotiations. The electric vehicle tax credits were among the last items they haggled over.

During the preceding months, Manchin repeatedly criticized Democrats’ interest in subsidizing electric vehicle sales, calling the idea “ludicrous.”

Manchin, whose state is home to a non-unionized Toyota manufacturing facility, also derided Democrats’ original proposal to offer an extra incentive for electric vehicles made by union workers. He called the proposal “not American.” The version that became law dropped it.

Manchin, Schumer and their staffs finally forged a compromise on electric vehicles in secret talks, unveiling the renamed Inflation Reduction Act on July 27. It offered a credit of up to $7,500 for electric vehicles, but only for those meeting a thicket of stringent requirements on what countries their battery minerals and components come from. Those requirements have since sparked a major trade feud with European governments whose companies are blocked from the incentives.

“He [Manchin] does not support the credit at all. And really when he wrote it, he hoped nobody could use it. And so he’s disappointed there are a few vehicles that can use it,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from auto-industry-heavy Michigan.

Heinrich said a clash with Manchin over implementation was “inevitable” given the different ways Manchin and the White House characterized the end product, which Manchin sees as an energy security measure designed to shore up energy production of all types. Biden is using the law to push a rapid transition away from fossil fuels in the name of combating climate change.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the House Progressive Caucus, downplayed the idea of a rift within the Democratic Party.

“The majority of [the IRA] we are all together on,” Jayapal said. “I do think he [Manchin] believes we should have a renewable energy transition. We probably have different ideas for what the transition looks like and how we get there. “

But the law didn’t leave the Biden administration much wiggle room in developing regulations to fit its complex domestic content restrictions, energy experts say. Manchin contends the administration is abusing the leeway it got. He’s especially taken umbrage at the Treasury’s initial three-month delay in issuing rules, which until mid-April allowed electric vehicles to qualify for the tax credit without meeting any domestic sourcing requirements.

When Treasury finally announced the guidance in March, it offered some olive branches to automakers worried about the rules being overly restrictive, but still left the majority of EVs on the market ineligible for the credit.

Even so, Manchin cried foul, calling the Treasury rules too loose in allowing foreign suppliers to share in the tax credit bounty.

He took particular aim at the Biden administration’s classification of certain foils, powders and other components used in the batteries. By classifying the powders as “critical minerals,” rather than “battery components,” Treasury avoided placing even more severe restrictions on vehicles eligible for the tax credit.

Manchin has also criticized Treasury for allowing leased vehicles to qualify for full tax breaks as “commercial” vehicles, a workaround that skirts some restrictions in the law.

And a crucial piece of guidance is still missing: clarity on which companies’ vehicles could be barred from receiving the credit because of their connections to China. The Treasury Department says it expects to release that provision later this year.

“Manchin very clearly wanted to put deglobalization ahead of decarbonization,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a research group. “He wants this stuff made here and if it slows down the transition so be it. Treasury is leaning toward trying to transition faster.”

Most Democrats, though, disagree that Biden has ignored congressional intent. They point to projections showing the IRA has already been a boon to the country’s clean energy jobs: It has prompted at least $243 billion in investments in battery plants, electric vehicles factories and other green energy projects since Biden signed the law in August.

Since Biden became president, there have been at least $95 billion in private-sector investments announced across the U.S. clean vehicle and battery supply chain, according to the Department of Energy, including $45 billion since the IRA passed.

Heinrich said he knows it may be “politically expedient” for Manchin to argue the IRA is not taking shape as he intended.

“But the reality is this legislation is working, and this administration is trying to manage both what we need to do long term, which is make all of this stuff here, but also build the runway to get there,” Heinrich said.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this report incorrectly quoted Kevin Book.

Trump Lawyer Joe Tacopina’s Terrible Cross-Examination Gets Even Worse

Daily Beast

Trump Lawyer Joe Tacopina’s Terrible Cross-Examination Gets Even Worse

Mitchell Epner – May 1, 2023

Michael M Santiago/GettyImages
Michael M Santiago/GettyImages

During more than a full day of cross-examination of E. Jean Carroll, Joe Tacopina, Donald Trump’s lead trial lawyer, gave an object lesson on how NOT to conduct a cross-examination in federal court.

The first day of cross-examination was badDay two was even worse. If a juror believed E. Jean Carroll’s direct testimony that she was raped by Donald Trump, Tacopina gave that juror precious little reason to reconsider that conclusion.

Before court even started Monday morning, Tacopina filed an 18-page motion for a mistrial, contending that Judge Lewis Kaplan–who is overseeing the case–had violated Trump’s rights by repeatedly ruling against Tacopina pre-trial and during the first day of cross-examination.- ADVERTISEMENT -https://s.yimg.com/rq/darla/4-11-1/html/r-sf-flx.html

Trump Rape Jurors Hear About the Flight When Trump Groped Another Woman

Tacopina acted as if Judge Kaplan was a batter who had dug in too closely to home plate, and he could use the motion as a “brush back” pitch to get Judge Kaplan to give Tacopina more leeway. The motion literally asked Judge Kaplan to either declare a mistrial or reverse virtually all of his evidentiary rulings.

This motion never had a chance of success. At best, it was performative–designed to give Tacopina the chance to demonstrate to Trump that he was trying his best to get Judge Kaplan to reverse himself. If Tacopina actually believed that the motion had any prospect for success, he is not nearly as formidable a trial attorney as I thought he was.

Predictably, Judge Kaplan ruled against the motion with a single word: “Denied.” During the rest of the day’s proceedings, Judge Kaplan made comments that underscored that he was not amused by the motion.

But that was just the beginning of the blunders.

<div class="inline-image__caption"><p>Joe Tacopina, lawyer of former U.S. President Donald Trump, questions former Elle magazine advice columnist E. Jean Carroll before U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. </p></div> <div class="inline-image__credit">Jane Rosenberg/Reuters</div>
Joe Tacopina, lawyer of former U.S. President Donald Trump, questions former Elle magazine advice columnist E. Jean Carroll before U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan.Jane Rosenberg/Reuters
Tacopina Violated Cardinal Rules Of Cross-Examination

One of the central rules of cross-examination is to never reinforce the testimony that the witness provided during direct testimony. This is difficult, because it is a challenge to remind the jurors of the testimony that the attorney intends to discredit without recapitulating that testimony.

The best cross-examination usually avoids this problem by using this formulation: “When you said [prior testimony] on direct examination, that was not the truth, was it?” The witness will either defend the prior testimony or appear confused. Good cross-examination will then lay out, in simple and direct assertions (phrased as questions), why the prior testimony had to be false.

Tacopina did precisely the opposite. He spent minutes at a time giving Carroll the opportunity to repeat her direct testimony. When he then tried to debunk it, he rarely had anything of substance to convince the jury that she must have been lying. Rather, he repeatedly just tried to get Carroll to admit that her testimony was “incredible” or “extraordinary”. Once she admitted that she found it amazing that she went from bantering with Trump to being a rape victim in the course of a couple of minutes, he had no place left to go.

Trump’s Lawyers Go After E. Jean Carroll for ‘Scheme’ Email

Tacopina also forgot the cardinal rule to never ask a question where you don’t know the answer.

Anyone who watches an episode of Law & Order (more on that shortly) knows that an attorney should never ask a question on cross-examination where they do not already know the answer (and have the evidence to control the witness).

Tacopina, however, repeatedly asked questions where it was clear he had no idea what the answer would be. During the first day of cross-examination, he jousted with Carroll about a SNL skit that she had written, which he clearly knew nothing about. On Monday, he did more of the same, asking about a text message to “Carol Martin” (who will testify for Carroll), when the text exchange was actually with “Carol Martin’s daughter Courtney”. Even after he was corrected, Tacopina repeated his assertion that the message was to Carol Martin.

Q: OK. This, in fact, was a text message that you had sent to Carol Martin, correct, and then to pass on to her daughter?

A: No.

Q: This was directed to her daughter?

A: Yes. I wrote directly to her daughter.

Q: So, with that adjustment in my question, that this was sent to Ms. Martin’s daughter, what you wrote was true?

A: Yes.

Tacopina Lost Control

Another rule for strong cross-examination is to never lose control of the courtroom. A good attorney will command the attention of the jury, using the witness as a prop who can only say “yes” when the attorney finishes a leading question with only one possible answer.

Instead, Tacopina ceded control to a video, playing an entire segment (over 10 minutes) of a CNN interview where Carroll talked to Anderson Cooper about being raped by Trump. Tacopina’s client, Trump, has repeatedly stated that he believes that anyone who watches the segment would conclude that Carroll must be lying. Instead, Tacopina gave the jury the opportunity to see Carroll once again cogently describe being sexually assaulted by Trump. While the video was playing, Tacopina was literally reduced to being an observer.

Jury Has Likely Decided Trump’s Fate in Rape Case Already

Tacopina Was Repeatedly Shut Down By Judge Kaplan

During my more than 25 years as a trial attorney, I have appeared before Judge Kaplan several times. He does not suffer fools gladly. During Monday’s cross-examination, Judge Kaplan frequently treated Tacopina as a fool who did not know the basics of the rules of evidence. He sustained several objections to lines of questions, just as Tacopina thought he was about to score points.

Virtually every time that Tacopina tried to use snide comments or repetition to undercut Carroll’s credibility, Judge Kaplan sustained objections or simply told Tacopina to “move along.”

In the courtroom, jurors typically look to the judge for guidance on how to regard the proceedings. When Judge Kaplan showed such disdain for Tacopina’s blustering and preening, he gave the jurors permission to disregard Tacopina’s questions as improper.

Tacopina Had A Few Scattered Successes

Tacopina had about five minutes of strong cross-examination. The problem was that it was hidden in about eight hours of ineffective questioning. His best questions were when he used Carroll’s own words (either from deposition or televised interviews) to rebut some of her direct testimony. For example, Carroll testified on direct that the rape by Donald Trump was the reason that she never had sex again.

Tacopina got Carroll to admit that she had previously stated during a podcast: “Well, after the episode in Bergdorf’s, I never had sex again, but I think it wasn’t because of him. I think it was I just didn’t have the luck to meet that person who would be desirous again. I think maybe in that dressing room my desire for desire was killed, but I think if I had met somebody, had the good luck to meet somebody, I think I would have been revived again. I think the desire would have boiled up again. I just think I’ve been unlucky.”

Had Tacopina limited himself to similar excerpts, I believe that he would have had a much greater impact in undercutting Carroll’s credibility.

E. Jean Carroll Testifies About ‘Extremely Painful’ Trump Rape

Re-Direct of Carroll Brought Home Her Central Allegation

One of the fundamental trial rules is that after cross-examination, the witness’ attorney has the opportunity to “rehabilitate” the witness through re-direct. Carroll’s attorney, Michael Ferrera, did a spectacular job. He gave Carroll the opportunity to directly address the insinuation on cross-examination that she had conjured up a rape allegation against Trump on the basis of an episode of Law & Order SVU that included a rape at Bergdorf Goodman.

Carroll testified that she never saw that episode or had never heard of it until she received an email (after she filed suit) telling her about it, and that she still did not know what happened in that episode.

More importantly, Carroll had the opportunity to again clearly state that Trump had raped her. She again testified that she could still feel the pain from when Trump sexually assaulted her. Her testimony was unshaken, even after two days of cross-examination.

A good cross-examination takes less than 30 minutes. The cross-examiner makes a few powerful points, which the witness cannot deny and re-direct cannot rehabilitate. By that standard, Tacopina conducted a very poor cross-examination. Whatever credibility the jurors thought Carroll had after she finished her direct testimony, they likely still believe that she has now.

They Refused to Fight for Russia. The Law Did Not Treat Them Kindly.

The New York Times

They Refused to Fight for Russia. The Law Did Not Treat Them Kindly.

Neil MacFarquhar – April 30, 2023

Pedestrians walk past a patriotic mural dedicated to victory in World War II, in Moscow, Feb. 17, 2023. (Nanna Heitmann/The New York Times)
Pedestrians walk past a patriotic mural dedicated to victory in World War II, in Moscow, Feb. 17, 2023. (Nanna Heitmann/The New York Times)

An officer in the Federal Guard Service, which is responsible for protecting Russian President Vladimir Putin, decided last fall to avoid fighting in Ukraine by sneaking across the southern border into Kazakhstan.

The officer, Maj. Mikhail Zhilin, disguised himself as a mushroom picker, wearing camouflage and carrying a couple of small bottles of cognac so that he could douse himself and then act drunk and disoriented if he encountered the Russian border patrol.

In the dark, the lean, fit major navigated across the forested frontier without incident, but he was arrested on the other side.

“Freedom is not given to people that easily,” he told his wife, Ekaterina Zhilina, months later, after Kazakhstan rejected his bid for political asylum and handed him back to Russia to face trial for desertion.

“He had these romantic notions when he first began his military-academic studies,” Zhilina said in a recent interview, describing perceptions drawn from Russian literature about the honor and pride inherent in defending your homeland. “But everything soured when the war started.”

Zhilin is among the hundreds of Russian men who faced criminal charges for becoming war refuseniks since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year. Some dodge the draft, while those already serving desert or refuse orders to redeploy on the bloody, chaotic battlefields of Ukraine.

In 2022, 1,121 people were convicted of evading mandatory military conscription, according to statistics from Russia’s Supreme Court, compared with an average of around 600 in more recent years. Before the war, a vast majority were fined, not imprisoned. Russia recently passed a measure making it much harder to avoid a draft summons.

In addition, criminal cases have been initiated against more than 1,000 soldiers, mostly for abandoning their units, according to a broad court survey by Mediazona, an independent Russian news outlet. Anticipating the problem in September, when several hundred thousand civilians were mobilized, Russia toughened the penalties for being AWOL.

The maximum sentence was doubled to 10 years for what is euphemistically called “Leaving for Sochi.” (SOCH is the Russian acronym for AWOL, but the expression is a play on the name of Sochi, a Black Sea getaway for the country’s elite and site of the 2014 Winter Olympics.) Refusing an order to participate in combat carries a sentence of three to 10 years.

That has not stopped Russian men from going to unusual lengths to avoid fighting. One officer said he took a bullet in the leg as part of a pact among several soldiers to shoot one another and then claim that they were wounded in a firefight. Hailed as a hero for various battlefield events, it took him six months to recover, at which point he decided to flee.

The Kremlin has shrouded in secrecy an increasing amount of information about the military, including new statistics about crimes involving military service, so the numbers are undoubtedly higher than what is available. But the number of AWOL cases accelerated after the general mobilization, according to Mediazona. Many criminal cases involve soldiers who refused orders to enter battle, leading to confrontations with their commanders, according to several lawyers who defend soldiers.

One lawyer, Dmitri Kovalenko, was retained by the families of more than 10 soldiers who said they were thrown into pits, called “zindans,” near the front line after refusing to fight. “People realize that they are not ready — that their commanders are not ready, that they have to go in blind, not knowing where or why,” he said.

Intimidation is the first response of commanders, he said, so treatment can be harsh. Two soldiers whom he defended were locked into a container last summer without food or water, he said. At one point, about 300 conscripts who refused to fight last year were held in a basement in eastern Ukraine, where they were threatened, called “pigs,” not fed and not allowed to go to the toilet or to bathe, according to Astra, an independent news outlet, and other Russian news media organizations, quoting relatives. The Wagner mercenary group has threatened to execute its refuseniks, and there have been scattered reports of them being shot.

In theory, Russian law allows for conscientious objectors performing alternative service, but it is rarely granted. Sometimes those charged with refusing to fight are given suspended sentences, which means they can be redeployed.

The officer who was shot in the leg by his colleague had pursued a military career since he was 9 and a cadet, he said, but he wanted it to be over the minute he was ordered into Ukraine. He ended up staying about three months, appalled by the very idea of the war as well as by the terrible state of the Russian military.

Soldiers were not provided basic items like underwear, he said, and few knew how to navigate and got themselves killed.

“There are no saints on either side,” said the officer, who spoke on the condition that he not be named, nor his location published, out of concern that Russia might seek his extradition. “The locals were actively partisan. I shot back. I didn’t want to die.”

After he recovered, and the military ordered him back to Ukraine, he decided to run.

“I’m ready to die for Russia, but I don’t want to fight, to risk my life for the criminals who sit in the government,” said the officer, who is now on a wanted list in Russia.

Another Russian, a member of the Sakha ethnic group concentrated in the Siberian region of Yakutia, also deserted. Five days among the drunken, newly mobilized soldiers at an army camp convinced him to leave.

The man, who also insisted on anonymity, was fired from his construction job so that he could go fight. Packed onto an airplane, the draftees discovered their destination for training by looking at their phones when they landed. Most soldiers drank constantly, he said in an interview. One night in another barracks, he said, a soldier stabbed another to death.

The conscript said that the racist attitude of his Russian officers when he did his military service a decade earlier had soured him on the military — they called him “reindeer herder” because of his ethnic Siberian background. He said he was subjected to similar comments as soon as he mobilized. Things deteriorated further after he tried to bribe his lieutenant to leave. The officer mocked him openly as a coward.

His mother flew in to extract him, directing a taxi to a hole in the base’s fence. After he fled the country and was charged with desertion, he faced fierce criticism from home, he said, with authorities saying that he had disgraced the Sakha people. Even a close friend threatened to beat him up.

Some Russian courts still publicize military cases to create a chilling deterrent to potential deserters. In the spring, for example, a court announced that a sailor who had gone AWOL twice had been sentenced to nine years in a prison colony.

The Krasnoyarsk Garrison Military Court released a photograph and a statement in December showing dozens of soldiers crowding a courtroom to watch an AWOL case. The sentence was pronounced before that audience “for preventive purposes,” the statement said.

In the Belgorod region near the Ukrainian border, two soldiers were detained on a parade ground in November and charged with refusing to obey a deployment order. They were called out of the ranks, handcuffed and thrown into a paddy wagon in front of their unit, all shown on a video posted on the Telegram messaging app. Earlier this month, both were sentenced to three years in prison, according to Russian news media reports.

Well before the war, Zhilin, 36, the soldier who left for Kazakhstan, had become disenchanted with the very administration he was assigned to protect. An engineer, he worked in the Siberian city of Novosibirsk for the presidential security service, supervising the Kremlin’s communications lines with the eastern parts of Russia.

The assassination of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in 2015 and the poisoning of Alexei Navalny in 2020 had drawn his attention, his wife said. He started following political news more closely.

He weighed quitting, but decided he could endure the two years until he received a pension. Then came the war. “‘It is one thing to suppress human rights,’” his wife quoted him as saying, “‘it is quite another to kill people.’”

In the fall, before the mobilization, he had visited the cemetery where his mother is buried. He found 30 new graves of riot police officers who had fought in the war. The ribbon on one small wreath said just “Daddy.”

Two colleagues had already died in Ukraine, and he wondered if his son, 11, and daughter, 8, might one day make a similar wreath. When the mobilization was announced, he quickly decided to leave the country.

Since his security clearance gave him access to state secrets, leaving was prohibited. He decided to cross on foot while his family drove into Kazakhstan legally.

But the plan went awry. Lacking a cell signal, he could not find their car. He was arrested after stumbling upon a Kazakh border officer. He requested political asylum, but in December, he was deported.

In March, he was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in a penal colony and stripped of his rank.

Right after he was deported, his wife, fearing that she and the children would also be sent back, sought and received political asylum in France.

So far, her husband has not been mistreated, she said. The couple, although bitter toward Kazakh authorities, consider the sentence a far better alternative than dying in Ukraine.

“Mikhail wrote me that he feels morally freer than he was,” she said, adding that he told her, “‘I guess you have to pay a certain price for the freedom to think and to say what you want.’”

A law school named after the late Antonin Scalia is a haven for conservative Supreme Court justices to enjoy lavish treatment

Business Insider

A law school named after the late Antonin Scalia is a haven for conservative Supreme Court justices to enjoy lavish treatment, New York Times reports

Hannah Getahun – April 30, 2023

antonin scalia
AP
  • Antonin Scalia Law School at the Virginia-based George Mason University was renamed in 2016.
  • The renaming was part of a plan to help its reputation by getting closer to the Supreme Court.
  • Justices were given notable benefits to teach there, emails obtained by The New York Times reveal.

A conservative law school looking to rebrand into a powerhouse institution buttered up conservative Supreme Court Justices with excessive benefits and good pay, documents obtained by The New York Times show.

Because justices are legally allowed to make money outside of the court in limited ways, including through teaching opportunities, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, which was renamed after the late judge in 2016, offered justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas teaching roles in remote locations like Iceland and Italy, as well as salaries sometimes upwards of $30,000 for two weeks of teaching, the NYT reported.

According to the NYT, the judges were treated well, with lodging and trip planning arranged by the school. University officials told Gorsuch in 2017, before a teaching trip to Italy, that he would only be required to teach in the mornings, leaving the rest of the day to explore the country, according to the emails obtained by the Times. Upon hearing this news, Gorsuch replied, “Fantastico!”

Even liberal justices were enamored by the treatment, according to the Times, with Justice Elena Kagan, who once spoke at the university, saying the law school “seems like a really good place to be.”

Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, spoke with the NYT and described the teaching jobs as appearing to be “all-expenses-paid vacations, with a little teaching thrown in.”

The law school began its relationships with the court following a renaming ceremony — planned by the school’s dean and Republican megadonor Leonard Leo — in 2017, where multiple justices attended and spoke. According to internal emails from university leadership, these relationships were explicitly made to help build the school’s reputation.

“Establishing and building a strong relationship with Justice Gorsuch during his first full term on the bench could be a game-changing opportunity for Scalia Law, as it looks to accelerate its already meteoric rise to the top rank of law schools in the United States,” one email from the university law school read, according to the NYT.

The law school’s staff, many of whom worked directly with the justices, often filed amicus briefs with the court, and court staff helped to handle school duties — despite not being allowed to do so — revealing how the justices’ jobs frequently entwined with their outside work at Scalia Law.

This desire to keep Supreme Court leadership on their roster even superseded scandals the judges faced. Following the sexual misconduct allegations Brett Kavanaugh faced right before he was appointed, Butler assured the justice protests from students against the soon-to-be law professor on campus had nothing to do with the law school, according to the NYT.

The NYT story comes at a time when the lives of the often-secretive Supreme Court have been scrutinized following a ProPublica report that Justice Thomas had been taking lavish secret vacations on a private jet and superyacht paid for by GOP megadonor Harlan Crow for years without disclosing them.

A new report from Insider’s Mattathias Schwartz found that the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts made millions as a legal recruiter for law firms, according to a whistleblower who worked with him.

Despite this extra scrutiny over conflicts of interest, legal experts told Insider there isn’t much that can be done to hold justices accountable.

The Antonin Scalia Law School and a spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.

Ukraine hits Crimea depot as nation gears up for spring offensive: Updates

USA Today

Ukraine hits Crimea depot as nation gears up for spring offensive: Updates

John Bacon, USA TODAY – April 30, 2023

A suspected Ukraine drone strike that ignited a massive fire at a Crimean oil depot in the Russian-occupied city of Sevastopol was a prelude to a much-anticipated spring offensive, the Ukraine military warned Sunday.

Russian Occupation governor Mikhail Razvozhaev blamed the fire Saturday on a Ukrainian drone, and social media footage showed the fire raging at a storage facility at Kozacha Bay. He said no injuries were reported.

The Ukraine military, as usual after a strike into Russia, did not claim direct responsibility, but spokesperson Natalia Humeniuk came close.

“This work is a preparation for the broad, full-scale offensive that everyone expects,” Humeniuk told Ukraine Pravda.

The attack came a day after Russia struck Ukraine with over 20 cruise missiles and two drones, killing at least 23 people. Most of the deaths took place in an apartment building in the central Ukraine city of Uman.

Ukraine military intelligence spokesperson Andriy Yusov told RBC Ukraine the Crimean strike was “God’s punishment. … This punishment will be long-lasting.” He warned residents of Crimea to stay away from sites that support “the aggressor’s army.”

A Russian military blogger based in Sevastopol reported that two Ukrainian drones destroyed four fuel tanks, the Study for the Institute of War said in its most recent assessment of the war. Another Russian military blogger reported that at least 10  drones conducted the attack but that most were shot down. Crimean occupation head Sergey Aksyonov said the attack did not result in any casualties.

Russia has occupied Crimea for nine years. Since Russia invaded Ukraine more than a year ago, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pledged to drive Russian forces out of all Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea.

In this handout photo made from video released by the governor of Sevastopol, Mikhail Razvozhaev, on April 29, 2023, on Telegram, a firefighter speaks on a walkie-talkie as smoke and flames rise from a burning fuel tank in Crimea.
In this handout photo made from video released by the governor of Sevastopol, Mikhail Razvozhaev, on April 29, 2023, on Telegram, a firefighter speaks on a walkie-talkie as smoke and flames rise from a burning fuel tank in Crimea.

Developments:

►Ukrainian forces shelled the city of Nova Kakhovka, according to Moscow-installed authorities in the Russian-occupied part of southern Ukraine’s Kherson province. “Severe artillery fire” cut off power in the city, the officials said.

►Ukraine is set to boycott the world judo championships next week after the International Judo Federation signaled it will allow Russian and Belarusian competitors to enter the event, a key Olympic qualifier.

RUSSIAN MISSILE STRIKES KILL 23: The attack was among the deadliest  in months: Updates

Wagner leader threatens to back off Bakhmut without more ammo

Wagner Group financier Yevgeny Prigozhin threatened to withdraw Wagner forces from Bakhmut if the Russian military command fails to provide more ammunition to the Wagner mercenaries. Prigozhin told a Kremlin-affiliated miitary blogger that his troops will continue to fight in Bakhmut but will need to “withdraw in an organized manner or stay and die” if the situation does immediately not improve.

Prigozhin said Wagner needs about 80,000 shells per day – its previous shell allowance prior to apparent Russian Ministry of Defense efforts to reduce Wagner’s influence. Prigozhin added that Wagner is only receiving 800 of the 4,000 shells per day that it is now requesting. Prigozhin claimed that Wagner and Deputy Commander of Russian Forces in Ukraine Army General Sergei Surovikin developed a plan to “grind” the Ukrainian forces in Bakhmut to deprive Ukraine of its initiative on the battlefield.

Ukraine: Residents in occupied areas can get Russian passports to ‘survive’

Ukrainians who live in Russian-controlled regions of Ukraine should “make a decision to survive” and sign up for Russian passports, Ukrainian human rights commissioner Dmytro Lubinets said Sunday. Otherwise, people should leave occupied territories “in any possible way,” the ombudsman told the Kyiv Independent.

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree last week allowing the deportation of Ukrainians who refuse Russian citizenship. Ukrainians who choose to retain their Ukrainian citizenship can be deported after July 1, 2024. They also face arrest, turning them into a “separate category of civilian hostages,” Lubinets said.

“This decree is aimed at legalizing forced ‘passportization,'” Lubinets said.

Moscow promises ‘very harsh’ response to embassy school eviction

Moscow will give a “very harsh” response to the seizure of the Russian embassy’s school in Poland, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said  Sunday.

Polish authorities ordered the Russian staff out Saturday, saying the building was part of Warsaw City Hall. Moscow described the eviction as illegal. Russia’s Ambassador to Poland Sergey Andreyev told TASS that on Sunday the staff of the school was moving equipment out of the building and that an alternative site had been obtained. Classes will resume after the May holidays on May 10, Andreyev said.

Zakharova told Russia’s TV1 channel that “Warsaw will receive retaliatory steps. … This is their choice; we will respond.”

Contributing: The Associated Press

Putin’s gangster state is bleeding his forces dry

The Telegraph – Opinion

Putin’s gangster state is bleeding his forces dry

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon – April 30, 2023

A damaged tank and pieces of war, Izyum
A damaged tank and pieces of war, Izyum

It comes as no surprise that Vladimir Putin rules Russia in spectacularly corrupt fashion. We all know how money is siphoned from the state and funnelled to his allies and oligarchs, as well as his own pocket. For years, this systemic corruption strengthened his grip on power, yet for his forces in Ukraine – despite the stalemate on the front lines, and undue pessimism from certain quarters – this criminality continues to do the opposite, slowly but steadily weakening the Russian ability to wage war and eroding Putin’s ability to control events.

Despite appearances, the Russian invasion is still falling apart – quite literally in the case of some poorly maintained vehicles and naval equipment – as a direct result of the rot at the heart of the Kremlin. The news that a Russian tank commander was arrested last week and accused of stealing the engines out of battle tanks comes as no surprise; neither are the recent revelations of the decrepit state of much of the Russian navy. It’s the perfect illustration of the insurmountable moral rot plaguing Putin’s gangster state.

The spectacular losses of armoured vehicles suffered by Moscow’s forces was initially a surprise to Western analysts; now I’m inclined to think they may well have been sitting ducks, with critical components sold for scrap or maintained on the cheap. In hindsight, we should have seen it coming: I can remember stories from my time serving as a tank commander in the Cold War facing off against the Russians in Germany. It was common to hear about Russian tank soldiers stealing engine coolant to drink for its intoxicating properties or flogging diesel supplies to buy food.

As for the state of the navy, Russia’s only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, has been out of action since 2018 thanks to a toxic combination of botched repairs and blatant illegality. In March 2021, the general director of the shipyard was arrested in connection with embezzlement of funds. The carrier is not predicted to return to active service until 2024 at the earliest. Meanwhile, the similarly antiquated nuclear-powered flagship of the Northern fleet, Peter the Great, will probably have to be scrapped because it is too expensive to modernise. So much for a country “bouncing back” from its earlier humiliations in Ukraine, such as the memorable sinking of the Moskva.

It is worth remembering, too, that many in the intelligence community believe that even Putin’s trump card – his much-vaunted tactical nuclear weapons – would not actually work properly because of age and mismanagement, even if the soldiers manning them could be persuaded to deploy them, which is far from clear.

As a former soldier, I remain certain this rot will inevitably deprive Russians of the will to fight. The most effective soldiers the Kremlin has left are the criminals that have been sprung out of jails across Russia to fight with the mercenary Wagner Group. But the moral component to fighting spirit is embedded in the belief and right of the fight, and the “silver” shilling of encouragement will only glint for so long. Russian gold is now badly tarnished and the exploitation of the people by a small elite is now all too obvious. The Kremlin’s coin will eventually poison those who cherish it and lead to Russia’s capitulation.

The timing of this implosion will entirely depend on Western resilience to keep giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to drain the Russians of their morale and ability to fight. Reports that Ukrainian units are having to ration shells when they have the might of so many advanced industrialised countries behind them shames us all. This is 2023, not 1915.

To those who think Russia can still summon an unstoppable wave of men and materiel like in the Second World War, think again. Putin’s gangsters have pillaged their own country, normalised corruption throughout the ranks of the military, and, in doing so, doomed themselves to defeat. The moral corruption endemic in Russia will bring Putin down, as it has countless tyrants before him. It is only a matter of time, if the West shows the same resilience in supporting Ukraine as the Ukrainians have in defending their country.

Col Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a former commander of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment

What is the meaning of ‘woke’? Once a term used by Black Americans, it’s now a rallying cry for GOP

USA Today

What is the meaning of ‘woke’? Once a term used by Black Americans, it’s now a rallying cry for GOP

Mabinty Quarshie, USA TODAY – April 28, 2023

During the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference, speaker after speaker attacked “woke” ideology in their speeches to conservative activists.

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley decried wokeness as “a virus more dangerous than any pandemic, hands down.”

“I traveled the country calling out the woke-industrial-complex in America,” GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy bragged.

Elsewhere, Republicans have declared war on “woke capitalism” and even introduced legislation like the “Stop WOKE Act,” in Florida, an acronym for Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees.

The uptick on excoriating “woke ” ideology has increased in recent years among politicians, including former President Donald Trump, as Americans across the nation battle over diversity, inclusion and equity efforts in the workforce, public schools and in legislation.

But what is “woke”? And what do the GOP attacks mean for 2024?

A GOP war on ‘woke’?: Most Americans view the term as a positive, USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll finds

What does being woke mean?

Among conservative lawmakers and activists “woke” tends to be an across-the-board denunciation of progressive values and liberal initiatives.

Some have used it to attack trans and gay rights while others apply it to critical race theory – a legal theory that examines systemic racism as a part of American institutions – and the teachings of the New York Times’ 1619 project in public schools.

“If you ask people what woke is, I think what they mean is they want to stand against people who are engaging in some type of advocacy for marginalized people,” said Andra Gillespie, political scientist at Emory University.

“It’s kind of this lumping together of anybody whose views could be construed as being progressive on issues related to identity and civil rights.”

At CPAC this year, for example, Daily Wire host Michael Knowles called for the eradication of “transgenderism.”

Woke capitalism: Why Republicans aren’t winning over investors in war against ESG and ‘woke’ big business

But Black Americans have used the term “woke” since at least the early-to-mid 20th century to mean being alert to racial and social injustice.

A version of the term was first used by Pan-African activist Marcus Garvey as early as 1923. It was later popularized by Blues artists such as Lead Belly, who used it when singing about the Scottsboro Boys, a group of nine Black teenagers who were falsely accused of raping two white women on a train in northeast Alabama in 1931.

As the Black Lives Matter movement began after the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, “woke” expanded outside of Black communities into the larger public lexicon.

What about ‘stay woke’?

Black artists and entertainers continued to insert the phrase in their music, including Grammy-award-winning artists Erykah Badu and Childish Gambino — a.k.a. Donald Glover—for political causes.

Yet “woke” has now been hijacked by the political right to mean something far from its original definition.

“The reason we have to ‘stay woke’ is because of exactly what these people are doing right now, which is finding very insidious ways to undercut our rights,” said Terri Givens, a political science professor at McGill University.

Givens called the attacks on the term “a full-on dog whistle” and pointed to attempts to limit the right to vote, curtail reproductive and abortion rights and ban inclusive education in schools as examples of the backlash against Black and brown civil rights.

“Learning history is not about woke-ism,” Given said.

The ‘woke’ backlash

Political experts said the backlash to woke-ism greatly increased after the 2020 worldwide protests against the murder of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor’s killing.

Conservatives now use the term as a political retort to combat what they perceive as political correctness gone haywire.

But progressive commentators note that the response also comes in the context of a changing America, which is becoming more diverse racially and ethically and along sexual orientation and gender identity lines.

“What they’re trying to do is make the term a pejorative,” said Kendra Cotton, chief operating officer of New Georgia Project, a progressive-leaning voting rights group.

As more marginalized groups are elected into office and exercising their voting power during elections, it can make some Americans afraid, said Cotton.

GOP wins House majority: Republicans send a message to ‘woke’ businesses— get out of politics

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a possible GOP presidential candidate, has built a persona crusading against ideas and policies conservatives deem as “woke.”

In addition to championing the Stop WOKE Act, he has stated that the Sunshine state is “where woke goes to die.”

Tehama Lopez Bunyasi, a political scientist at George Mason University and co-author of the book “Stay Woke: A People’s Guide to Making All Black Lives Matter,” said the legislation is “perhaps the most explicit way we see the co-optation of the term ‘woke’ today.”

“Right now, we’re seeing racially conservative pundits and politicians positioning themselves as adversaries of the multiracial Black Lives Matter movement,” said Lopez Bunyasi. “One of the rhetorical tools they are using is the maligning of a term that has been in use by Black people and in Black politics for well over a hundred years.”

Have the anti-woke attacks been successful?

Virginia GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin cruised to victory in 2021 riding a wave of parental anger over teaching inclusive history in public schools.

Keneshia Grant, a political scientist at Howard University, said Youngkin’s success was part of an intentional pushback against marginalized communities, which includes misunderstanding terms like woke, critical race theory, and LGBTQ rights.

“He ends up successfully using the fear that people have about teaching students Black history or American history through the guise of CRT and successfully uses that to motivate a base,” Grant said. “They are doing this because they think it will help them win. And we have evidence that sometimes it actually does help them win.”

Americans divided on what ‘woke’ means

What’s telling is that despite the conservative backlash most Americans don’t view “woke” negatively heading into the 2024 presidential contest.

March 2023 USA TODAY/Ipsos Poll found that 56% of Americans said it means “to be informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices.”

But the efforts to re-define “woke” have worked with a significant portion of the country. Roughly 39% of those surveyed agree with the Republican definition,”to be overly politically correct and police others’ words.”

The war on ‘woke’: Senate blocks Biden ESG investing rule, Biden vows to veto

“Racial resentment and grievance are certainly one of those things that have been very effectively used to mobilize a certain segment of the Republican population for a long time,” said Gillespie.

Reporter Phillip M. Bailey contributed to this story.

Here’s everybody with stricter ethics rules than the Supreme Court

Yahoo! Finance

Here’s everybody with stricter ethics rules than the Supreme Court


Rick Newman, Senior Columnist – April 27, 2023

Ponder this: Most journalists at mainstream news organizations face far tougher ethical rules than the nine Supreme Court justices who decide monumental issues that directly affect the lives of millions of Americans.

The Associated Press’s rule on gifts allows its journalists to accept nominal offerings worth no more than $25 from anybody who could plausibly be the source of subject or a news story—even if it’s a personal friend. Most news organizations follow the AP guidelines or have a similar code.

There are no such rules at the Supreme Court. A troubling exposé by ProPublica recently revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted numerous lavish gifts from real-estate magnate Harlan Crow, including an Indonesian yachting trip worth as much as half-a-million dollars. Thomas also sold real-estate to Crow in what looks like a sweetheart deal for the jurist. Thomas’s fellow conservative, Justice Neil Gorsuch, also profited from a property deal with a wealthy friend, as if there’s some secret real-estate agency that only serves nine exalted judges, allowing them to avoid the vicissitudes of the normal market.

FILE - Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
FILE – Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Thousands of US businesses and most of the federal government follow ethics guidelines meant to sustain trust in those organizations, protect their integrity, and prevent self-dealing. Nobody pretends those guidelines are perfect. People cheat. Businesses play dirty. Bosses cover up wrongdoing. But a basic code of ethics protects against legal liability and bolsters morale at most organizations in the country.

“Most companies take the code of ethics seriously,” says Rue Dooley, a knowledge adviser at the Society for Human Resource Management. “It’s a good way to regulate certain behaviors. It’s about building trust, sustaining credibility with vendors, clients, customers, patients, and stockholders.”

The executive branch of the federal government has an exhaustive set of rules governing what’s permissible, covering gifts, outside income, investments, property, financial disclosures, conflicts of interest and many other things. There’s a whole agency, the Office of Government Ethics, whose job is to oversee and enforce ethics rules in the executive branch.

The House of Representatives has a detailed code of ethics, with any gift valued at more than $250 requiring approval of the House Ethics Committee. In the Senate, the limit on gifts is $50. Both codes clarify what counts as a “personal friendship,” including possible conflicts of interest. The federal judiciary has its own code of ethics, with the same $50 gift limit as the Senate.

The Supreme Court, by contrast, is uniquely unbound by any behavioral rules. With the court under fire, Chief Justice John Roberts published an unusual note on April 25 outlining what he called the “foundational ethics principles” the justices follow. “The Justices … consult a wide variety of authorities to address specific ethical issues,” he wrote. These include guidelines for other judges and federal employees, various laws, scholarly articles, disciplinary decisions and advice from colleagues.

There are a couple of problems with Roberts’s reasoning, however. First, there is no single document or set of documents that represents the court’s code of ethics. If you go looking for it, you won’t find it. That’s an obvious recipe for confusion. Justice Thomas responded to the ProPublica exposé saying that years earlier, he “sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends … was not reportable.” This would never fly in an organization with a formal policy and a process for approving or disapproving gifts.

That gets to another problem with the court: There’s no ethics enforcement mechanism. In virtually every other organization, somebody has the power to rule yes or no on a dodgy ethics question. In Congress, it’s the ethics committees. In the rest of the federal judiciary, there’s a chief judge or some other authority. At companies, bosses leading up to the CEO decide what’s acceptable, and they’re accountable if something goes wrong. At the Supreme Court, the chief justice has no such authority over any other justice. Justices are literally answerable to nobody. Roberts acknowledged this in his April 25 memo, pointing out that the organization that oversees other federal courts does not have jurisdiction over the Supreme Court.

Thomas claims that his rich buddy Harlan Crow is a “close personal friend who did not have business before the court,” at the time Thomas went on all-expense-paid luxury trips with him. A proper ethics inquiry would likely shred this defense. Crow is a politically active conservative who, along with his wife, has donated nearly $15 million to candidates and causes during the last 30 years. Almost all of that went to Republicans. During that time the court has heard numerous cases Republicans took a position on, such as three challenges to the Affordable Care Act, several matters involving former President Donald Trump, and the current legal challenge to President Biden’s effort to forgive student debt. Saying a major Republican donor has no interest in Supreme Court outcomes is either woefully naïve or completely disingenuous.

The Roberts defense is “wholly insufficient,” says Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a nonprofit that advocates for more judicial accountability. “The Supreme Court should agree, or Congress should require them, to follow all the same rules on gifts, travel, and personal hospitality that Congress has to follow.”

A new bill in Congress would do just that. The Supreme Court Code of Conduct Act would require the court to adopt a formal set of ethics rules, appoint somebody to enforce them and publish an annual report on any violations or complaints about questionable activity by the justices. Prospects are dim, however, since Republicans who control the House are generally opposed. For the foreseeable future, the Supreme Court will govern itself and enjoy fewer strictures than most of the Americans it supposedly serves.

Russia’s Defense Ministry braces for major defeat in Ukraine, expert says

The New Voice of Ukraine

Russia’s Defense Ministry braces for major defeat in Ukraine, expert says

April 27, 2023

Ukrainian soldiers ride a tank on the road to the town of Chasiv Yar
Ukrainian soldiers ride a tank on the road to the town of Chasiv Yar

Read also: Russia’s General Staff spread disinformation about winter offensive on Kyiv – Pentagon leaks

“This is preparation; not only are information resources being prepared, but also the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation,” said Svitlan.

“They are already starting to move (personnel), removing from certain positions generals who can be held accountable for failures and, possibly, war crimes.”

Svitlan adds that Russia is bracing for a major breach of its defensive lines in Ukraine.

“At least two fronts will implode; and it needs to be somehow covered up, redirected, and obscured from the media space,” he said.

Read also: Dmytro Syryk, Suspilne radio host, killed at front

“The only way to cover it is to be overtaken by a more significant problem. This is a standard technique of information warfare.”

According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, citing data from the Pentagon, Russia does not have enough personnel to maintain full control over all temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.

Read also: Fighter jets ranked 8th on Ukraine’s list of military needs, Pentagon says

Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces could launch a major counter-offensive in May, according to recent reports in Western media.

We’re bringing the voice of Ukraine to the world. Support us with a one-time donation, or become a Patron!