Joe Pillitteri and Courtney Gilmour’s arguments are anything but uniform when they discuss if every kid should have an after-school job. Then, can you have too many cousins? Arthur Simeon and Jackie Pirico decide if it's all relative.

Elvira Kurt and Graham Chittenden have no time to waist when they discuss if belts are superior to suspenders. Then, should everyone move to Hamilton? Gavin Stephens and Ron Sparks bring the Hammer down on each other in their debate for this Ontario city.

Derek Seguin and Chad Anderson grow the generation gap when they discuss if Gen Xers are the best age group. Then, Hisham Kelati and Kathleen McGee have a spirited debate on whether angels are superior to ghosts.

Bruce Clark and Clare Belford go their separate ways on whether it’s never too late to get divorced. Then, Graham Clark and Julie Kim avoid knee-jerky reactions when they decide if nothing beats a convenience store.

Deborah Kimmett and Myles Anderson make waves when they discuss if there’s no better day than a day at the beach. Then, are mosquitoes the most annoying insect? Pete Zedlacher and Rob Bebenek get under each other’s skin when they take on these bothersome bugs.

It’s the premiere of The Debaters’ 19th season and this is one for the bever-ages! Dave Hemstad and Lisa Baker are in Newfoundland trying to burst each other’s bubble when they decide if Coke is superior to Pepsi. Then, are family doctors overrated? Clifton Cremo and Martha Chaves checkup on these medical professionals.

Matt Wright and Charlie Demers make waves in St. John’s, Newfoundland when they discuss if the Atlantic Ocean is superior to the Pacific Ocean. Then, Bree Parsons and Nikki Payne bring a wealth of wit when they decide if growing up poor makes you a stronger person.

Patrick Ledwell and John Sheehan bring it home when they discuss if a staycation is the best type of vacation. Then, This Hour Has 22 Minutes’s comedy couple Chris Wilson and Stacey McGunnigle are in good company when they go head-to-head on whether it’s okay for one partner to have more success than the other.

Myles Anderson and Sean Lecomber troll with the punches when they discuss whether kids should use social media. Then, are stripes superior to polka dots? Rob Pue and Kathleen McGee refuse to be clothed-minded with their patter on these patterns.

There’s no topping Ivan Decker and Maddy Kelly debating Canadian restaurant chain Boston Pizza. Then, Abdul Aziz and John Hastings are weekend warriors when they decide if long weekends are overrated.

Is butter better than margarine? Derek Seguin and Matt Wright churn out jokes in a battle for the superior spread. Then, Nour Hadidi and Hisham Kelati get in the zone when they decide if Newfoundland has the best time zone.

Charlie Demers and Lisa Baker are anything but fake when they discuss if it's okay to ignore the news. Then, are windows superior to doors? Graham Clark and Charles Haycock tear a weather-strip off each other in this architectural argument.

To honour the passing of Edmonton's wonderful and hilarious Kathleen McGee, The Debaters is re-airing one of her memorable debates from 2021. Featuring Kathleen McGee, Erica Sigurdson, Peter Brown and Ryan Williams in East Vancouver.

We explore how the white working class became a force in American politics, linguist Adam Aleksic spells out how online subcultures shape popular language, Shireen Ahmed and Morgan Campbell look back on the Paris Olympics, and historian Mary Beard shares lessons for our world from the Roman Empire.

Toluse Olorunnipa, Molly Ball, and Keith Boag unpack the latest on Kamala Harris' election campaign, science writer Amorina Kingdon explains the effect of human activity on the natural marine soundscape, Jennifer Welsh and Arif Lalani discuss the latest developments in the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, and Fei-Fei Li reflects on her groundbreaking work in AI.

Emilie Nicolas, Marieke Walsh, and David Herle explore what's at stake for the federal Liberals ahead of Parliament's return, Viet Thanh Nguyen talks about his latest kids book Simone, and we present Piya Chattopadhyay's on-stage conversation with four journalists about the vital role of local news – and new ideas emerging to enhance it.

Bea Bruske reflects on the state of the labour movement today, katherena vermette explores how "pretendians" damage Indigenous communities, Jon Ronson talks about how pandemic lockdowns helped fuel culture wars, and Maya Shankar offers advice on how we can all weather change better.

Our Sunday Politics Panel breaks down the NDP-Liberal breakup, Roland Allen explores why the notebook endures in the digital age, Nate Silver weighs the rewards of taking risks in politics and beyond, and our monthly challenge That's Puzzling! returns.

John Gradek unpacks the Air Canada pilot dispute, Marieke Walsh sets up Parliament's return, Walter Frisch explores why the classic song "Over the Rainbow" continues to endure, Armine Yalnizyan and Mikal Skuterud weigh the stakes of changes to Canada's immigration policy, and Ben Yagoda charts the rise of Britishisms in North American English.

Christopher Kirchhoff explores how technology is shaping global conflict, Nathan Law reflects on fighting for democracy in Hong Kong, Susanne Craig shares her reporting on Donald Trump's wealth, and Guy Vanderhaeghe looks back on what shaped him as a writer.

We unpack the latest on rising tensions in the Middle East, novelist Richard Powers reflects on finding possibility in the threats we face, Sixties Scoop survivor Andrea Currie shares her story and efforts to help other Indigenous people heal, and Eli Burnstein talks about the value of parsing fine distinctions in everyday language.

CBC foreign correspondent Chris Brown brings us the latest from the Middle East, NHL star Nazem Kadri shares his journey in hockey, Derek Guy explains how clothes transcend fashion on the campaign trail, and we take stock of one year since the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and ensuing war.

We explore our future living with superstorms, Adrian Ma traces how Vince Carter shaped Canada on and off the basketball court, Connie Chung reflects on her trailblazing career in broadcasting, and we play another round of our monthly challenge That's Puzzling!

Marieke Walsh, Matt Gurney and Stephen Maher break down the week in Canadian politics, Michael Coren reflects on the transitions that have defined his life, our U.S. Election Panel explores what to expect in the final weeks of the campaign, and Oliver Stuenkel explains the rise of the BRICS group of nations.

Our Sunday Politics Panel breaks down the Liberal caucus revolt, Dr. Chika Stacy Oriuwa shares her journey to becoming a doctor, Dave Karpf explores how Big Tech is shaping the U.S. election campaign, Jaya Saxena charts how review culture took root in modern life, and John Thorn explains the historic rivalry taking place at this year's World Series.

Our U.S. Election Panel breaks down the final stretch in the race for the White House, Timothy Caulfield unravels the myths of the "manosphere" while investigating the male wellness industry, and author Malcolm Gladwell explores the darker sides of social epidemics.

Our U.S. Election Panel breaks down the final stretch in the race for the White House, Timothy Caulfield unravels the myths of the "manosphere" while investigating the male wellness industry, and author Malcolm Gladwell explores the darker sides of social epidemics.

Our U.S. Election Panel explores what Donald Trump's victory means for the country's future, Rob Sheffield breaks down how Taylor Swift has transformed culture, Gregg Carlstrom and Michael Bociurkiw weigh in on what Trump's return to power may mean for wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, and we play another round of our monthly challenge That's Puzzling!

In navolging van Ziggo maakt ook provider Online nu de tarieven bekend per 1 juli 2024. Prijsvergelijker Breedbandwinkel meldt dat alle abonnementen simpelweg 4,50 euro per maand duurder worden. Dit geldt voor zowel de DSL abonnementen als de Online glasvezelabonnementen over het netwerk van KPN en DELTA Fiber.

In navolging van onder andere Ziggo en Online maakt vandaag ook KPN de prijsverhogingen bekend die per 1 juli 2024 gaan gelden. Prijsvergelijker Breedbandwinkel meldt dat de prijsverhoging neerkomt op maximaal 2,00 euro per maand voor internet, afhankelijk van het abonnement. Er wordt gerekend met een inflatiecorrectie van 3,8%.

Ziggo past per 1 juli 2024 een inflatiecorrectie toe op de tarieven voor internet, tv en vast bellen. Internet en tv vergelijker Breedbandwinkel meldt dat internet 1,00 euro duurder wordt per maand. Voor tv en vast bellen geldt elk een prijsverhoging van 0,50 euro per maand. De prijsverhoging geldt voor alle ruim 3 miljoen Ziggo klanten.

This issue features a Special Technology Report looking in depth at the latest developments in the world of Printing and Labelling solutions.

Also included is a ‘Cover Story’: Gartner explains that by 2026, 30% of enterprises will automate more than half of their network activities, an increase from under 10% in mid-2023.

Currently, the nation and perhaps the world struggles with the recent jury verdict against Donald Trump finding him guilty of 34 felony counts. Trump claims that the verdict proves Joe Biden uses the criminal justice system as a political tool intended to defeat his political opponents, in this case him. On the other hand, many take the position that the case demonstrates the triumph of the rule of law because it proves that even the most privileged and powerful of citizens must ultimately reckon with legal accountability. I opt for the conclusion that the case exemplifies a healthy rule of law operating to impose reasonable and predictable accountability and consequences for even the most powerful governing elites in American today for the following six reasons.

First, and foremost, the guilty verdict reflects the unanimous conclusion of 12 jurors, after careful deliberation and judicial instruction, empaneled pursuant to pre-announced New York Law. Donald Trump, like all criminal defendants, held the power to refuse a limited number of jurors without cause and to move to strike jurors for cause. The jurors hailed from Trump's former home state and the headquarters of the Trump Organization—New York. It is noteworthy that not a single juror dissented from the verdict and that they reached the verdict without any judicial cajoling through, for example, an Allen charge. The jury questioned the evidence and the instructions to assure they acted properly. They deliberated about 12 hours after spending five weeks listening to witness testimony and reviewing other evidence including extensive documents. Trump's high-powered legal team exercised their right to cross-examine witnesses, explain away evidence and submit their own exculpatory evidence. Despite these rights, the best legal team money could buy failed to raise any reasonable doubt with even one juror, on even one count, regarding Trump’s guilt.

Second, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds a well-earned reputation as a professional prosecutor who gets the job done and gets it done professionally. Recall that Bragg endured severe criticism for declining to prosecute Trump for tax fraud in 2022, prompting two prosecutors to resign. Bragg apparently found the case against Trump too risky to warrant pursuit. Instead, he meticulously built this case which proved bullet-proof. Bragg won his office through an election of local voters and does not work for Joe Biden or even the federal government. The man holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and proved himself as a non-partisan prosecutor by letting Trump walk on other fraud charges in 2022. The fact that he sought a Grand Jury indictment against Trump on this case suggests that there was probable cause that Trump committed the crimes—a fact that the jury's verdict fully vindicates.

Third, Justice Juan Merchan presided over the entire Trump matter with appropriate judicial restraint. Given Trump’s contemptuous misconduct and constant threats of violence against the judge, his family, his staff and the jury, Merchan certainly held the power to imprison Trump for contempt. He held his fire and allowed the jury to do its job. Despite Fox “News” reports to the contrary, the evidence suggests the Judge ruled on objections and other procedural matters with judicious wisdom. He righteously rejected Trump’s efforts to dismiss the charges, as proven by the unanimous jury verdict on all counts. Again, Merchan, a New York state judge, holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and, Trump and his team produced zero evidence that Biden even attempted to influence Merchan.

Fourth, Trump himself knew he faced an uphill battle once he decided not to testify and take the stand to declare his innocence. Due to Trump’s decision the jury never heard Trump deny the charges, claim innocence or explain the mountain of evidence against him in the form of witnesses, key documents, or the tape-recording directing Cohen to pay Daniels by check. In fact, there was no defense theory of the case. Trump would not exude credibility as a witness due to his history of fraud, and he would risk a finding of perjury if he claimed innocence under oath or if he simply made-up stories on the stand. In any event, many defendants face challenges testifying on their own behalf, but Trump made that call, not Joe Biden.

Fifth, after reviewing the jury instructions, I saw no error, in that the instructions fairly reflect governing law in New York. While some complain reasonably that the jury was not required to identify the precise crime that transforms misdemeanor falsification of records into a felony, there is Supreme Court authority in support of this. Juries typically do not need to identify with particularity (nor even agree upon a particular predicate crime) a predicate crime to a felony charge; here the crime Trump intended to further with false business records. The US Supreme Court might well make up some means of saving Donald Trump (see Trump v. United States and Trump v. Anderson). Justice Merchan, however, cannot read the minds of the conservative Court majority and it is not his job to predict ways the Supreme Court can throw lifelines to former President Trump. Merchan’s instructions reflect the law today and that is the goal of jury instructions, not to craft new innovations to save Trump.

Sixth, all the cries of conspiracy theory and a rigged justice system from Trump and his minions lack any evidentiary foundation. They produced zero evidence that Joe Biden masterminded this entire prosecution. The claim is facially absurd. Biden did not set up Trumps illicit and adulterous liaisons, Trump did. Biden did not meet with David Pecker to set up a scheme to hide Trump’s prior bad acts in the run-up to election 2016. Trump signed the checks reimbursing Cohen the hush money paid to Trump’s co-adulterers. Trump can only blame Trump for his 34 felony convictions.

In light of the above, I conclude that Donald Trump enjoyed all the due process the US Constitution accords criminal defendants. Of course, with his billions, Trump can afford the very best lawyers which most defendants cannot. As former President, Trump enjoys the right to argue before many justices he appointed which most defendants do not. From a rule of law perspective the case proves that even the richest and most politically powerful must answer for their crimes.

Las emisiones mundiales de dióxido de carbono (CO2) debidas a la energía fósil, el principal factor de calentamiento de la Tierra, siguen sin tocar techo. via Pocket

WashingtonLa Pamela va a comprar al supermercat dues vegades a la setmana. La carn, el pollastre i l’arròs són alguns dels productes que no poden faltar a la nevera del seu apartament de Washington D.C. Explica que compra la vedella de la millor qualitat: “Això implica que gastaré més. via Pocket

To quote Riot Fest, "Don't cry because it's over, cry because it happened. See you next year!"

The official Government and Legal notices for today [Nov 12] include notification of planning applications registered. List of Planning Applications Advertised on November 12, 2024 Notice type: Government Notice Notice sub type: Notification of Planning Applications Registered Notice ID: GN1010/2024 Public Authorities / Department: Planning Publication date: 12 November, 2024 The applications shown below are available for […]

Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden

There are defendants in a lawsuit brought in the northern district of California called Defense for Children International– Palestine v. Biden. The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney Marc Vander Hout. We’re going to talk about this lawsuit against President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin. This lawsuit follows a January 2024 historic hearing that included testimony from some Palestinian plaintiffs and witnesses to the scale of destruction in Gaza and its impact on their families and communities.

Last week, a federal trial court in northern California found that Israel’s assault and siege of the Palestinian people in Gaza, possibly constituted genocide and implored the Biden administration to explain its “unflagging support“ for Israel. Notwithstanding these findings, the court denied the Center for Constitutional Rights‘ preliminary injunction motion and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the administration of foreign relations.
The CCR appealed the decision. The appeal was argued on June 10, 2024.

Guest – Attorney Katherine Gallagher is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights . Her areas of legal expertise include matters of torture, war crimes and militarism. Among her many major cases is the case titled, Situation of Afghanistan at the International Criminal Court; and the case titled, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests-v-Vatican. Prior to her work at the CCR, she worked at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

—-

A Century Of Repression: The Espionage Act And Freedom Of The Press

These are dire times for freedom of speech around the world. According to a recently-released report, more than half of the world’s population now lives in countries that are in a state of “crisis” regarding freedom of speech. This is occurring during a year that has been marred by attacks on investigative journalism all over the world, which we have especially seen in elections in Mexico and India, as well as in the United States.

Against this backdrop, the United States is only adding gasoline to a media-freedom fire by pursuing an ongoing prosecution and attempting to extradite WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange under a 100-year-old US law called the Espionage Act of 1917. This prosecution threatens to set a dangerous precedent for journalists everywhere during these perilous times.

Guest – Carey Shenkman, is a constitutional lawyer and serves on a panel of experts at Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression Program. He is co-author, along with Ralph Engelman, of A Century Of Repression: The Espionage Act And Freedom Of The Press. Carey has recently been appointed Legal and Policy Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. [Source for 50% figure – Global Expression Report, published by the London-based free speech organization ARTICLE 19] https://www.globalexpressionreport.org/

——————————————–

A Brief History of Kill Lists, From Langley to Lavender

Two artificial intelligence systems are being used by Israel and the United States to compile kill lists of Palestinians in Gaza. They are called Lavender and Where’s Daddy. This has led to the indiscriminate slaughter of whole families and has killed mostly women and children. The CIA and the US military have always tried to use the latest data processing technology to identify and kill their enemies. The history of American government assassinations goes back to collaborating with ex-Nazi intelligent officers after World War II.

Guest – Medea Benjamin, is co-founder of the international antiwar organization CODEPINK. She is the author of several books, including, with Nicholas J.S. Davies, War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict. She has been an advocate for social justice for more than 40 years. Described as “one of America’s most committed — and most effective — fighters for human rights” by New York Newsday, and “one of the high profile leaders of the peace movement” by the Los Angeles Times, she was one of 1,000 exemplary women from 140 countries nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the millions of women who do the essential work of peace worldwide.

—-

A Trend In Abolishing Capital Punishment

A growing number of states have abolished capital punishment in recent years. However, the death penalty remains on the books in 27 states, although the number of executions in American is at an all-time low. It is well documented that the death penalty is riddled with fatal flaws. Literally, the flaws are denying defendants a fair trial and are killing innocent people. An average of 4 wrongly convicted death-row prisoners have been exonerated each year since 1973.

According to recent research, jurors are three times more likely to recommend a death sentence for a black defendant than for a white defendant in a similar case. The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. A study by the Death Penalty Information Center found that the South has consistently had by far the highest murder rate, yet the South accounts for more than 80% of all executions. The Northeast, which has fewer than 0.5% of all executions, has consistently had the lowest murder rate.

Guest – Mike Farrell is the President of Death Penalty Focus, an organization on whose Board I’ve served for many years. Known to millions as “B.J. Hunnicutt” on television’s historic show “M*A*S*H,” he is also a writer, director and producer. A human rights activist for over 35 years, Mike has taken part in scores of aid missions and human rights delegations to countries all over the world. Mike has visited prisons and been personally involved in numerous death penalty cases across the U.S. for over three decades.

—————————-

 

Freedom For Julian Assange!

After serving 1901 days in solitary confinement in a tiny cell in the infamous Belmarsh prison in London, journalist and publisher Julian Assange is free at last.

Julian gained his freedom pursuit to a plea bargain with the government of the United States which had sought to extradite him and try him under the 1917 Espionage Act He faced a certain conviction in a hostile Virginia court and 175 years in prison on 17 count of conspiracy to commit espionage for receiving and publishing information damaging to the United States government.

Julian Assange was forced to plead guilty to one count of espionage in return for the time he has served in prison. Prior to that he was confined for seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had sought and received political asylum.

The alleged crime he was accused of committing was the receipt and publication in 2010 of the so-called Iraq and Afghanistan war logs which document American government guilt in torture and murder including the 11 civilians and two Reuters journalists.

Julian Assange was sentenced to time served by an American federal court judge on an island in the Pacific Ocean 2000 miles from Australia. Julian Assange will now be living as a free man in Australia with his wife and two children.

Guest – Randy Credico, a steadfast supporter of Julian Assange. Mr. Credico. hosted the program “ Countdown to Freedom” in support of Julian for many years. He had visited him in Belmarsh prison.

—-

War Crimes, Dictators and the ICC

The International Criminal Court (ICC) along with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) were set up in 1998 in order to help prevent wars and crimes against humanity with the profound understanding that without a system of international law a future World War III might eliminate humanity.

The United States of America, under Bill Clinton, was one of seven countries that voted against the Rome statute which set up the International Criminal Court. Clinton did eventually sign the statute but George Bush “unsigned“ it and the United States has had a testy relationship with the court. Indeed under Trump, the US imposed sanctions on the court and its prosecutor.

Last month Imran Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, issued arrest warrants for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Galant, the Israeli Minister of Defense for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC also issued arrest warrants for three top leaders of Hamas.

Guest – Attorney Reed Brody, was a friend, colleague, and mentee of our late cohost Michael Ratner. Reed Brody is the author of the recently published book To Catch a Dictator: The Pursuit and Trial of Hissene Habre. He has worked for many years with Human Rights Watch. Reed Brody has helped pursue the dictators Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Jean-Claude “ Baby Doc” Duvalier of Haiti. He has uncovered atrocities by US backed Contras in Nicaragua, led United Nations missions in El Salvador and the Congo, and exposed Bush administration torture.

—————————————-

Two Very Important Supreme Court Decisions

When does the government cross the line from using its highly visible bully pulpit to advocate for policies and principles it has every right to promote into the prohibited zone of threatening to use its awesome powers to punish viewpoints it opposes by coercing others to refrain from doing business with the speaker.

In two very important recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether it is still the law of the land that a government entity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment.

In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, in a rare unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”

But the decision in the related case of Murthy v. Missouri, was not unanimous. In that case a federal district judge had ruled that the U.S. Surgeon General (Vivek Murthy) and other government officials violated the First Amendment by seeking to convince social media platforms to remove content the government deemed disinformation about COVID, the 2020 election and other subjects.

But on June 26, the Court punted. A 6 member majority – made up of both conservatives and liberals – held that the plaintiffs did not have standing. In dissent, three conservative justices said they would have found standing and on the merits they would have found a First Amendment violation.

Guest – Attorney David Cole argued the NRA case in the Supreme Court. He’s been the National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) since 2016. He previously served as a staff attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights. He has litigated a wide array of major civil liberties controversies and has personally argued 8 cases before the US Supreme Court and served as counsel in more than 30.

—-

Abolition Labor: The Fight To End Prison Slavery

Operating in the secrecy of the nation’s more than 1,800 prisons, a kind of shadow slave culture is being fostered. Few Americans are aware of the exploitative and pervasive practice of forced prison labor. The 13th amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery, but it made one exception: prison labor.

Prisoners are forced to work with minimal or non-existent wages, and often with no labor protections. Understanding the scope and implications of forced prison labor is crucial for anyone concerned with social justice and equity. It calls for a re-examination of our treatment of incarcerated persons and for alternatives that promote fairness for everyone, regardless of their legal status. By shining a light on this issue, we can advocate for reforms that prioritize rehabilitation over punishment and strive towards a more just and humane criminal justice system. A new book, Abolition Labor: The Fight To End Prison Slavery, provides an eye-opening overview of the extent of this problem.

Guest – Andrew Ross is a renowned social activist, author, and Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis at New York University, where he also directs the Prison Research Lab. Andrew has contributed to prominent publications like The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Nation. He has authored or edited over twenty-five books, with the recent work, Abolition Labor,  co-authored with Aiyuba Thomas and Tommaso Bardelli.

Guest – Aiyuba Thomas recently earned his M.A. from NYU’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study and is an affiliate of the NYU Prison Research Lab. He currently serves as project manager for the Movements Against Mass Incarceration’s archival oral history project at Columbia University. There, he documents the experiences and challenges faced by those affected by the criminal justice system. His firsthand perspective and his extensive knowledge on the subject makes him a powerful voice in the conversation of abolishing forced prison labor.

Trump v United States

On July 1, the United States Supreme Court handed down one of the most important decisions in the history of our democracy. In the aptly named case of Trump verses United States, the six arch conservative justices awarded the ex-president – who appointed three of them – a vast and complex criminal immunity scheme.

In three ways the majority delivered Trump a tailor made “Stay-Out-of-Jail” trifecta of expanded constitutional protections for Presidents: First, absolute immunity for crimes committed when a President engages in “core” official acts and a near-conclusive presumption of immunity for other official acts; Second, a brand new rule of criminal procedure making a President’s motives irrelevant; and Third, another new rule excluding evidence of a President’s official acts from a criminal trial for his unofficial acts, which prosecutors offer to prove the ex-president’s prior knowledge and intent.

To help us understand exactly what the Court did and its impact not only on the 91 felony charges currently pending against Trump, but the future of the American presidency and our very democracy, we’ve ask one of our very own co-hosts.

Guest – Stephen Rohde practiced constitutional law for almost 50 years. He’s the author of American Words of Freedom, which examines the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. On issues of civil rights, civil liberties and the Americal political system, he is a regular contributor to Truthdig, LA Progressive, Los Angeles Review of Books, and LA Lawyer magazine. This Fall on Ms. Media, he is launching Speaking Freely: A First Amendment Podcast with Stephen Rohde.

—-

The Palestinian Exception To The First Amendment

The resistance organization Palestine Legal, headquartered in Chicago, was created by our own Michael Ratner and others to resist our governments’ practice of what Michael called “the Palestinian exception to the first amendment.“

This exception to the supposedly protected First Amendment activity of speaking out and organizing by Palestinian solidarity activists is carried out by the repression of the US government nationally and locally. It has never been more ferocious than it is now.

However, the mobilization against the Israeli genocide – carried out with total US support – has not been undeterred by peak anti-Palestinian repression. Palestine Legal has been in the vanguard in defending and promoting the rights of people expressing solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza.

Guest – Dima Khalidi, founder and Director of Palestine Legal. Her work includes providing legal advice to activists, engaging in advocacy to protect their rights to speak out for Palestinian rights, and educating activists and the public about the repression of Palestine advocates. Prior to founding Palestine Legal in 2012, Dima worked with the Center for Constitutional Rights as a cooperating attorney on the Mamilla Cemetery Campaign, submitting a Petition to United Nations officials to stop the desecration of an ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem, and advocating on behalf of Palestinian descendants of individuals interred in the cemetery.

———————————–

 

Religious Nationalism and Separation of Church and State

The separation between church and state is a key component of our democracy, ensuring that freedom of belief is a right for all, not a privilege for some. The First Amendment’s establishment clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” has been understood to prohibit the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over others. This interpretation aims to ensure that the government remains neutral in religious matters and does not interfere with or support religious activities, thus maintaining a clear separation between religious institutions and government functions. Despite this, recent rulings by the right-leaning Supreme Court blur the lines between church and state and threaten to undermine this doctrine.

The rise of white Christian nationalism contributes to the degradation of the principle of separation of church and state. This movement reflects broader cultural and demographic trends and exerts significant influence on policy, public discourse, and grassroots movements. Addressing this issue involves understanding the underlying causes and promoting policies that uphold the constitutional commitment to religious neutrality and freedom.

Guest – Attorney Andrew Seidel, is the Vice President for Communications at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that challenges threats to the First Amendment. He is also the author of two acclaimed books: The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American and American Crusade: How the Supreme Court is weaponizing Religious Freedom.

—-

Bend The Arc: Jewish Action

Hamas’ brutal attack on Israel on October 7 and Israel’s deadly and sustained military assault on Gaza have had significant consequences in the United States affecting the presidential election and triggering protests and counter-protests at hundreds of college campuses across the country.

It has also presented a serious test for progressive Jews and progressive Jewish organizations in the United States. One of those organizations is Bend the Arc which describes itself as “building a multiracial, multi-ethnic, inter-generational movement of Jews and allies all across the country who are rising up to build an American future free from white supremacy, antisemitism, and racism.” The Bend the Arc family of organizations includes a C3, C4 and a PAC, and in the past, I served as national chair of Bend the Arc’s C3 board and am currently active in its work in the California Chapter.

Until now, Bend the Arc had a strong boundary around working only on domestic economic and racial justice issues.  But that all changed on June 4. On that day, Jamie Beran, CEO of Bend the Arc , sent a letter to President Biden. The letter welcomed Biden’s support for a permanent ceasefire plan in Gaza, but quickly added that, “Time and time again, despite your calls to end this violence, you have not followed through with material action. With over one million Palestinian refugees now being forced to flee Rafah, their last guaranteed refuge, thousands of lives lost, and families of captives being fined in Israel for demanding a ceasefire, it is long past time to end U.S. support for these attacks. Now is the moment to make good on your promise to stop providing offensive weapons to the Israeli military.”

Guest – Jamie Beran, is a leader in the Jewish social justice space. Jamie has built justice organizations that embody their values inside and out. She has held many roles at Bend the Arc in her 15-year tenure, including 9 years of executive leadership, most recently as Chief Operating Officer prior to becoming CEO. Prior to joining Bend the Arc, Jamie was the Leadership Development Director for Habonim Dror North America. Jamie holds a BA from Goucher College and is an alumna of UJA Federation’s and Columbia Business School’s Institute for Jewish Executive Leadership. Jamie lives in Central New Jersey with her husband and two children.

—————————————