August 6, 2023

Sunday, August 6, 2023. Annette’s News Roundup

I think the Roundup makes people feel not so alone.

To read an article excerpted in this Roundup, click on its blue title. Each “blue” article is hyperlinked so you can read the whole article.

Please feel free to share.

Invite at least one other person to subscribe today! buttondown.email/AnnettesNewsRoundup

______________________

Joe is always busy.

Touch 👇 to watch the Biden Dark Brandon video that is making MAGA nuts. The President posted this on arraignment day for you know who.

______________________

The latest DOJ - Prosecution/Trump Tussle.

Trump.Friday, August 4.

His Truth Social ALL CAP post seems to violate his pre-trial agreement by threatening prosecutors and potential witnesses.

The Justice Department on Friday night asked asked for a Protective Order, Citing Threatening Trump’s Post.

On Saturday, this was Trump’s response. 👇

Judge Chutkan, the presiding judge, has not yet responded to the government’s request.

One more thing.

On Saturday, Judge Chutkan DENIED Trump’s legal team's request for more time to respond to the protective order the DOJ requested.

—

Trump is ready for ‘He said, I said.’ But contemporaneous notes sworn to under oath make pretty compelling testimony.

______________________

How Justice Thomas was able to live the life he always wanted.

Clarence Thomas’s $267,230 R.V. and the Friend Who Financed It.

Justice Clarence Thomas, circa 2000, with his great-nephew and his Prevost Le Mirage XL Marathon motor coach.

Justice Clarence Thomas met the recreational vehicle of his dreams in Phoenix, on a November Friday in 1999.

With some time to kill before an event that night, he headed to a dealership just west of the airport. There sat a used Prevost Le Mirage XL Marathon, eight years old and 40 feet long, with orange flames licking down the sides. In the words of one of his biographers, “he kicked the tires and climbed aboard,” then quickly negotiated a handshake deal. A few weeks later, Justice Thomas drove his new motor coach off the lot and into his everyman, up-by-the-bootstraps self-mythology.

There he is behind the wheel during a rare 2007 interview with “60 Minutes,” talking about how the steel-clad converted bus allows him to escape the “meanness that you see in Washington.” He regularly slips into his speeches his love of driving it through the American heartland — “the part we fly over.” And in a documentary financed by conservative admirers, Justice Thomas, who was born into poverty in Georgia, waxes rhapsodic about the familiarity of spending time with the regular folks he meets along the way in R.V. parks and Walmart parking lots.

“I don’t have any problem with going to Europe, but I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States,” he told the filmmakers, adding: “There’s something normal to me about it. I come from regular stock, and I prefer being around that.”

But there is an untold, and far more complex, back story to Justice Thomas’s R.V. — one that not only undercuts the mythology but also leaves unanswered a host of questions about whether the justice received, and failed to disclose, a lavish gift from a wealthy friend.

His Prevost Marathon cost $267,230, according to title history records obtained by The New York Times. And Justice Thomas, who in the ensuing years would tell friends how he had scrimped and saved to afford the motor coach, did not buy it on his own. In fact, the purchase was underwritten, at least in part, by Anthony Welters, a close friend who made his fortune in the health care industry.

He provided Justice Thomas with financing that experts said a bank would have been unlikely to extend — not only because Justice Thomas was already carrying a lot of debt, but because the Marathon brand’s high level of customization makes its used motor coaches difficult to value.

In an email to The Times, Mr. Welters wrote: “Here is what I can share. Twenty-five years ago, I loaned a friend money, as I have other friends and family. We’ve all been on one side or the other of that equation. He used it to buy a recreational vehicle, which is a passion of his.” Roughly nine years later, “the loan was satisfied,” Mr. Welters added. He subsequently sent The Times a photograph of the original title bearing his signature and a handwritten “lien release” date of Nov. 22, 2008.

But despite repeated requests over nearly two weeks, Mr. Welters did not answer further questions essential to understanding his arrangement with Justice Thomas.

He would not say how much he had lent Justice Thomas, how much the justice had repaid and whether any of the debt had been forgiven or otherwise discharged. He declined to provide The Times with a copy of a loan agreement — or even say if one existed. Nor would he share the basic terms of the loan, such as what, if any, interest rate had been charged or whether Justice Thomas had adhered to an agreed-upon repayment schedule. And when asked to elaborate on what he had meant when he said the loan had been “satisfied,” he did not respond.

“‘Satisfied’ doesn’t necessarily mean someone paid the loan back,” said Michael Hamersley, a tax lawyer and expert who has testified before Congress. “‘Satisfied’ could also mean the lender formally forgave the debt, or otherwise just stopped pursuing repayment.” (New York Times)

Want to read the whole article about Justice Thomas and Anthony Welters. Click here.

______________________

Ohio Voters will decide on Tuesday.

Vote No on Tuesday. Call everyone you know. Get out the vote.

Ohio Issue 1 and its potential impact on abortion, explained.

On Tuesday, Ohio voters will participate in a special election to decide “State Issue 1,” a ballot measure that has galvanized supporters and critics alike, especially because it could affect another upcoming vote on whether to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution. Here’s a look at what Issue 1 would do, and its potential effect on abortion in Ohio.

What would Issue 1 do?

Issue I is a ballot measure that seeks to make it more difficult to amend the state’s constitution through - yes- future ballot initiatives.

Currently, a ballot initiative in Ohio needs as simple majority to pass. If issue 1 passes, the threshold would be raised to 60% of the vote.

The proposal also would impose more stringent requirements on how signatures are gathered for ballot initiative campaigns. Campaigns must gather enough signatures to equal 5 percent of the votes cast for governor from 44 of the 88 counties in Ohio. Issue 1’s passing would mean campaigns would have to gather that same percentage of signatures from all 88 counties to get a citizen-led initiative on the ballot.

What do the ‘Yes’ and ‘ No’ votes mean for Issue 1?

Voting “Yes” on Issue 1 means you support making it more difficult to amend Ohio’s constitution through ballot initiatives, principally by raising the threshold for a ballot measure to pass from a simple majority to 60 percent of the vote.

Voting “No” on Issue 1 means you support the status quo, in which a ballot initiative can pass with a simple majority of the vote.

If Issue 1 passes, it would take effect immediately, meaning future ballot initiatives in Ohio — including the one on abortion this fall — would require 60 percent of the vote to pass, rather than just a simple majority.

How is Issue 1 related to Abortion?

In recent weeks, a ballot measure that would codify abortion rights into Ohio’s state constitution was certified to appear on the November general election ballot.

Ohio is among several states where lawmakers have sought to make it more difficult to pass citizen-led initiatives after liberal policies — from protecting abortion rights to expanding Medicaid to raising the minimum wage — won at the ballot box. Efforts to raise the bar to amend state constitutions have cropped up during legislative sessions in recent years. (Washington Post). Read the whole article here.

______________________

World Cup.

Alex Morgan of the American women’s soccer team.

USWNT plays Sweden at 5 am ET this morning for a spot in the quarterfinals. Japan awaits the winner. Spain has secured its place, against the winner of South Africa v. Netherlands.

______________________