Untitled

Strict Medicaid work rules could harm people with serious illnesses, advocates say : NPR https://share.google/uuck1R3NVj2U066b0

Forest Service offers separation incentives to employees ahead of relocations | Federal News Network https://share.google/Za9tqxGnDU22gKOPE

John Roberts' corruption is now permanently etched into the historical record.

The Six Articles of Impeachment are summarized below:

Article One – The Chief Justice allowed the Court to become a partisan force, in breach of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, due process, and equal protection of the laws, and the Chief Justice’s obligation to “administer justice without respect to persons” and “faithfully and impartially” discharge his duties. Time and time again, the Court has violated its own principles with a pattern of interfering in elections on behalf of Republican candidates.

For example, in the eight days following Callais, Tennessee dismantled its only majority-Black congressional district, splitting Memphis into three pieces. Alabama and South Carolina indicated they would follow suit. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved Democratic redistricting amendment, a case the Court declined to stay, within days. In contrast, the Court bypassed its rules to enable Louisiana to redraw its map in time for the 2026 elections. Similarly, on an expedited basis, the Supreme Court vacated lower court injunctions preventing Alabama from redistricting and allowed a new map to take effect eight days before the primary election. The asymmetrical application of the Purcell principle in a way that benefits Republicans demonstrates either the Chief Justice’s inability to administer the court impartially, or that his gross negligence would prevent him from faithfully discharging his duties.

The asymmetrical application of the Purcell principle in a way that benefits Republicans demonstrates either the Chief Justice’s inability to administer the court impartially, or that the Chief Justice is so negligent that he was unable to foresee that releasing the Callais decision days after Virginia’s referendum, and then subsequently picking and choosing which states will be redistricted with one line orders, would be perceived as political by the American people, and, in so doing, destroy their confidence in the neutrality and independence of the Court.

Article Two – Under Chief Justice Roberts’ stewardship, the Court systematically preferred the powerful over the people, undermining the notions of popular sovereignty, representation, and democracy at the heart of a constitutional republic. Taken together, Chief Justice Roberts led the Court to license a system of political exclusion that could entrench minority rule at the expense of the will of the people – a grave violation, with incalculable damage, to participatory democracy enshrined in our Constitution.

Article Three – Chief Justice Roberts violated his oath to “do equal right to the poor and the rich” by endorsing a corrupt campaign finance system that privileges the wealthy at the expense of all other citizens.

Article Four – Chief Justice Roberts violated the Constitution of the United States and his Judicial Oath by usurping Congress’s legislative role and exempting the President of the United States from criminal liability for illegal conduct. In placing a single person above the law, Chief Justice Roberts breached his oath to “administer justice without respect to persons.”

Article Five: Chief Justice Roberts’s leadership of the Court is marked by the Court’s arbitrary, unexplained, and inconsistent decisions that violate the Constitutional protections of the parties.

Article Six: Chief Justice Roberts violated his ethical and statutory obligations by failing to fully report assets on his financial disclosures and refusing to recuse himself from cases that presented perceptions of a conflict of interest. While on the bench adjudicating some of the most sensitive matters, Jane Sullivan Roberts, the Chief Justice’s spouse, was being paid millions of dollars to recruit attorneys by the very firms litigating before the Court. This conduct directly violates 28 U.S.C. § 455. More importantly, it violates the constitutional structure and the parties’ constitutional rights to an independent and impartial magistrate to adjudicate their claims.

Judge Kathleen Williams has had enough.

In a brief but devastating order Friday, the federal judge in Miami reopened Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS — a case Trump had voluntarily dismissed last week specifically to avoid her scrutiny — and ordered Trump's lawyers to explain by June 12th why she shouldn't find that the entire scheme was a fraud perpetrated against her court.

The judge's language was pointed and precise. She said she wanted to investigate "grievous allegations" that the deal to resolve the case was "premised on deception." She asserted that she was "empowered to investigate serious misconduct" and demanded answers to two devastating questions: was "the court the victim of a fraud," and did Trump collude with his own government to settle the case specifically "to avoid judicial scrutiny"?

The answer to both questions, based on everything that has already been reported, appears to be yes.

Judge Williams had been circling this case for weeks before Trump pulled it. She had openly questioned how Trump could sue an agency he controls, with government lawyers who answer to him, producing a settlement negotiated with officials he appointed. She ordered both sides to explain whether they were actually adversaries or secretly colluding. Trump dismissed the case the day before those briefs were due.

Then, after she closed it, the Justice Department released not one but two extraordinary agreements — a $1.776 billion fund to compensate Trump's allies, and a separate one-page document permanently barring the IRS from ever auditing Trump, his family, or his businesses. Agreements that had apparently been negotiated while the case was supposedly active before her court.

Judge Williams cited the New York Times report revealing that the IRS had prepared a 25-page memo outlining strong defenses against Trump's suit — defenses the Justice Department never raised in court, never filed, never mentioned.

Her order came directly in response to the filing by 35 former federal judges — appointed by presidents of both parties — who called the scheme a fraud and urged her to reopen the case.

She listened.

"We stand ready to work with the court as it investigates this matter," said Norman Eisen, who represented the former judges.

Trump tried to flip the table before she could see the cards. She just put them back on the table.

If you can’t wait to see the Justice Department try to explain itself, please like and share this post everywhere.