Software developer at a big library, cyclist, photographer, hiker, reader. Email: chris@improbable.org
24860 stories
·
223 followers

Identity and SF

1 Share

Yesterday I announced I was a 2024 Inductee into the Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame—and how astonished I was by that. Why the astonishment? Because while I’m absolutely a native of SF, and the only writing workshop I’ve ever attended was Clarion, most recently I’ve been better known for writing novels that aren’t SFF in the classic sense—though, as I’ve argued elsewhere, they are speculative fiction. So what works have I authored that are inarguably SFF?

I’ve written two SF novels, Ammonite and Slow River; one Arthurian fantasy novel, Spear; and one contemporary disability-with-monsters short novel, So Lucky. I’ve edited three anthologies in the Bending the Landscape series: BtL: Fantasy, BtL: Science Fiction, and BtL: Horror. And every single piece of shorter fiction I’ve ever published has been SFF, from my first, “Mirrors and Burnstone” (the prequel to Ammonite), to the Warhammer work-for-hire stuff I did in 1989 and 1990, to the two most recent, “Glimmer” and “Cold Wind.” (I’m not really known for my shorter fiction and don’t write a lot of it but most of it has been shortlisted for SFF awards of some variety or other1 and/or been reprinted in Year’s Best anthologies. And in case you’re wondering, no, it’s never been collected. And, yes, I have more than enough for a collection, and yes, I’d like to publish a collection; I’ve just never quite got around to it.)

I love science fiction (and fantasy and speculative fiction of every flavour); it lies at the core of my writing career. I have never for a minute tried to ‘walk away from SF’ or ‘transcend SF’ (the very idea pisses me off—SF does not need ‘transcending’). SF people are my people. In honour of the honour of being a 2024 inductee into the SFF Hall of Fame, then, here’s an essay I wrote a while ago about why SFF matters to me.2

Identity and SF: Story as Science and Fiction

Scientific theory and fiction are both narrative, stories we tell to make sense of the world. Whether we’re talking equation or plot, the story is orderly and elegant and leads to a definite conclusion. Both can be terribly exciting. Both can change our lives.

I was nine was I realised I wanted to be a white-coated scientist who saved the world. I was nine when I read my first science fiction novel. I don’t think this is a coincidence, though it took me a long time to understand that.

For one thing, I had no idea that the book I’d just read, The Colors of Space, an American paperback, was science fiction: I had no idea that people divided books into something called genres. In my world, there were two kinds of books: ones I could reach on the library shelves, and ones I couldn’t. My reading was utterly indiscriminate. For example, another book I read at nine was Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, dragged home volume by volume. (Obviously, at nine, much of it went over my head but it fascinated me nonetheless.) But my hands-down favourite at that time wasn’t a library book, it was an encyclopaedia sampler.

When my parents were first married, my father, to make ends meet (they had five children in rapid succession), sold encyclopaediae door-to-door at the weekends. Long after he’d stopped having to do that, he kept the sampler. I loved that book. Bound in black leather, it had gold-edged pages and the most fabulous articles and illustrations—artists’ impressions of the moon or Mars or a black hole. It was state-of-the-art 1950s, samples of articles on everything from pastry to particle physics. I would read that book on Saturday mornings, lying on my stomach on my bedroom carpet. Those pages were my Aladdin’s Cave. I read entirely at random. Looking back, probably the thing that hooked me irrevocably was that almost every article was incomplete: they finished mid-paragraph, often mid-sentence. I knew, reading that black sampler, that there was more, that the story always continued, out there somewhere, in the big wide world.

One Saturday morning when I was nine, I read the most gobsmacking thing of my life: everything in the world was built of something called atoms. They were tiny and invisible and made mainly of nothing. If you could crush all the nothing out of the Empire State Building, it would be the size of a cherry stone but weigh…well, whatever the empire state building weighs. I clapped the book shut, astonished, leapt to my feet and thundered downstairs. In the kitchen, where my mother was cooking a big fried breakfast for seven, I announced my incredible discovery. She said, “How interesting. Pass the eggs.” I blinked. “But Mum! Atoms! The Empire State Building! A cherry stone!” And she said, again (probably with a bit of an edge), “Yes. Very interesting. Pass the eggs.” So I passed the eggs, and wondered briefly if my mother might be an alien. (Unlike many of my other friends it never occurred to me to wonder if I might be adopted: too many sisters with features just like mine. Understanding of some of the laws of genetics was inescapable.)

I spent the rest of that weekend in a daze, resting my hand on the yellow formica of the kitchen table while everyone ate their bacon and eggs, wondering why my hand didn’t melt into the table. They were both mainly nothing, after all. What else in the world wasn’t what it seemed? What other wonders were waiting for me to stumble over them?

About a month later, I was helping my mother clean the local church hall where she ran a nursery school during the week, and under a bench I found a book with a lurid red and yellow cover: The Colors of Space. (Until two weeks ago, I didn’t know the author was Marion Zimmer Bradley. I could easily have found out anytime in the last few years, but I didn’t. Not checking on memory is one of my superstitious behaviours. I also don’t take photos of special occasions or keep a journal. I don’t like freezing things in place. I prefer fluidity, possibility. However, before I sat down to write this essay, I went to Amazon, looked up the book, and ordered it. When it arrived, I was delighted by the lurid red and yellow cover, then amused when I realised it explained something that puzzled my friends a dozen years ago. My first novel, Ammonite, was published in 1993. The first edition had a truly cheesy red and yellow cover with a spaceship front and centre. No one could understand why I wasn’t upset but, clearly, I was drawing fond associations with my nine year-old self, remembering another ugly paperback. When I’ve finished writing this, I’ll re-read it…)

I don’t remember a thing about the story or the characters, only that it was about aliens (aha, I thought, imagining my mum) and the discovery of a new colour. That night, lying in bed, I nearly burst my brain trying to imagine a new colour, just as in my teens I would drive myself to the brink of insanity (not so hard, really, when a teenager) trying to imagine infinity.

At some point we moved to a new house—we were always moving—and the black leather encyclopaedia sampler disappeared. By this time I had discovered Asimov and Frank Herbert and a collection of ’50s SF anthologies with introductions that banged on the SF drum and introduced me to the notion of genre. I was hooked. Through these stories, far more than through any school lessons, science came alive for me: surface tension (Blish’s “Surface Tension”), ecology (Herbert’s Dune), multi-dimensions (Heinlein’s “And He Built a Crooked House”), politics (just about anything by Asimov). Science became my religion. I stopped day-dreaming about taking gold in the Olympics and started thinking about changing the world. I didn’t fret over minor details such as which discipline to choose—who cared whether it was physics or chemistry or maths or biology that ended up saving humanity?

That was the beauty of being twelve, and then thirteen. I didn’t have to deal with reality. I didn’t have to ignore with scorn the messy inexactness of zoology in order to devote myself to the purity of maths or to the measurability of chemistry. Watching a bird, considering Newton’s laws, learning about the tides of history seemed equally important. I wanted it all. The world sparkled. Einstein’s photoelectric effect, a spoof proving one equals two, Popper’s swans and Pavlov’s dogs: I fell in love with each in turn, depending on what class I was in. (Funnily enough, I never much liked any of my science teachers; they never liked me, either.) I tried on future identities: discovering an anti-grav drive; feeding all those starving children in fly-buzzed parts of the world; finally pinpointing the location of Atlantis.

At the same time, I was busy being a teenager. I tried on here-and-now identities: short hair or long? Hippie or punk? Beat poet in black or sweet-faced thing in pastels? Judas Priest or David Bowie? Monty Python or Star Trek?

An American SF editor, David Hartwell, has said that the golden age of SF is twelve. He has a point. The essence of being twelve, and of science fiction, is potential. They are both all about hopes and dreams and possibilities, intense curiosity aroused by the knowledge that there’s so much out there yet to be known. As we get older and do fewer things, and fewer things for the first time, that sense of potential diminishes. The open door starts to close—just like the anterior fontanelle of an infant’s skull.

Reading good fiction, particularly good SF, keeps the adolescent sense of possibility jacked wide open. A sense of possibility maintains plasticity, it keeps us able to see what’s out there. Without this sense of possibility, we see only what we expect.

Someone who runs on the same beach at dawn every day for two years gets used to certain things: being alone, the hiss and suck of the waves, the boulder that juts from the rock pool at the point where she leaps the rill, the cry of the gulls, the smell of seaweed, all in tones of grey and blue. So there you are one morning, running along, cruising on autopilot, using the non-slippery part of the boulder to give you a boost as you jump over the rill, listening unconsciously to the gulls squabbling over something at the water line. You’re thinking about breakfast, or the sex you had last night; you’re humming that music everyone’s been listening to the last week; you’re wrestling with some knotty problem for which you have the glimmerings of a solution. There’s a dead body on the beach. You run right past it: you literally don’t see it.

It’s counterintuitive, but it happens all the time: the white-faced driver staring at the tricycle crushed under his front wheel, “I just didn’t see him, officer.” The microbiologist who skips past the Petri dish in a batch of sixty cultures with that curiously empty ring, that lack of growth, in the centre. The homeowner who returns to his condo and doesn’t see the broken window, the muddy footprints leading to the closet and the suitcase full of valuables lying open on the bed. Every day, during our various routines, the movie of what we expect plays on the back of our eyelids while our brain goes on holiday. How many times do we got out of the car at the office and realise we don’t remember a thing about the journey?

Reading SF, the over-riding value of which is the new, keeps our reticular activating systems primed: we expect everything and anything. And if we expect, we can see. If we see, we try find an explanation. We form a hypothesis. We test it. We learn. We tell a story.

A science fiction story not only excites us about the world, it excites us about ourselves, how we fit within the systems that govern our universe, and excites us, paradoxically, about our potential to change the world. The best SF is, in a sense, about love: loving the world and our place within it so much that we make the effort to make a difference. But science fiction changes more than the world, changes more than our place in the world; it changes us. Science fiction has changed the discourse on what it means to be human. It introduced us to the notion that the nature of body and mind are mutable through tall tales of human cloning, prosthetics, genetic engineering. What would people look like today without prosthetics (contact lenses, artificial hips and knees, pacemakers and stents, dentures), cosmetic surgery, gene therapy? The more we change our story of ourselves, the more we change.

Which brings me full circle to the idea of fixing memory. I don’t like taking photographs or keeping a journal because, on some level, it stops me learning about myself. If I freeze an image permanently, I can’t revisit it and recast it, I can’t retell the story. I believe in story. Without it we don’t learn, we don’t grow, we don’t re-examine what is known to be known. I believe in science fiction stories, I believe in scientific theories. I read a novel about the fragility of the Y chromosome, or a text on the myth and mystery of the constant, phi, and both make me stop and think: Oh. My. God. Each blows me away, puts a shimmer around my day and lightens my step—and urges me to turn an eager face to the possibilities of tomorrow.

  1. Everything from the Hugo to the Nebula to the Locus to the Tiptree/Otherwise to the BSFA… ↩
  2. SciFi in the Mind’s Eye (ed. Margret Grebowitz, Open Court, 2007) ↩


Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete

2024 Inductee to the SFF Hall of Fame

1 Comment

I am being inducted into the Museum of Popular Culture’s Science Fiction + Fantasy Hall of Fame. (The other 2024 Creator Inductee is Nnedi Okorafor.) When I found out I blinked. Blinked again, a bit dazed. Then, as it sank in, I started alternately grinning and blinking, thinking Yay! and What?


I am a native of sf, but not a resident.

— William Gibson, acceptance speech at MoPOP, Seattle, 2008

This is something William Gibson said at his 2008 induction into SFFHO.1 It encapsulates beautifully how I feel: I may no longer be a full-time resident of SFF but I am a citizen: I go back to the Auld Country fairly regularly; the vocabulary and grammar of SF are my first language; and my passport is current. Still, I am amazed to be invited to join the grandees in the Hall of Fame. I mean, go look at that list!

There is nothing in the world to compare to the feeling of being honoured by peers, part of something—belonging. I feel great! You can’t see me as I type this but believe me when I say: I am still grinning my head off. And I am grateful. Thank you.

I’m sure I’ll have more to say in a day or two. Meanwhile, here’s the press release.

Seattle Author Nicola Griffith Inducted into Science Fiction & Fantasy Hall of Fame at MoPOP

The celebrated speculative fiction author and disability activist becomes the third local creator to be honored since MoPOP became steward of the Hall of Fame exactly twenty years ago.

SEATTLE, WA. (July 25, 2024) – Seattle-based speculative fiction author and activist Nicola Griffith (Hild; So Lucky) is being inducted into the Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame at Seattle’s Museum of Pop Culture.

Griffith joins Nnedi Okorafor, bestselling Nigerian American writer of Africanfuturist science fiction and fantasy, as one of two annual inductees in the “Creator” category for the class of 2024.

Founded in 1996, the Hall of Fame was relocated from the Gunn Center for the Study of Science Fiction at the University of Kansas to its permanent home at MoPOP in 2004. Inductees are nominated by the public, and a panel of professionals selects the final four annual inductees—two creators and two creations.

Each addition to the Hall of Fame reshapes the whole, providing fresh inspiration and lived experience and furthering MoPOP’s mission to ensure the full scope of science fiction and fantasy is honored.

Griffith’s first novel, Ammonite, was just named on Esquire’s “75 Best Sci-Fi Books of All Time” list, and her Pride Month talk The Queer Medieval drew a crowd of hundreds to Town Hall Seattle on June 11, 2024.

The two previous Seattle-area inductees to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Hall of Fame are Dreamsnake author Vonda McIntyre (2018) and Arrival author Ted Chiang (2020).

About Nicola Griffith

Nicola Griffith is a British American speculative fiction writer and activist. Author of the Hild Sequence, Ammonite, So Lucky, Slow River, Spear, and more, Nicola’s work has been awarded the Nebula Award, Otherwise/Tiptree Award, World Fantasy Award, Los Angeles Times Book Prize, two Washington State Book Awards, and six Lambda Literary Awards.    

https://nicolagriffith.com/

About MoPOP

The Museum of Pop Culture is a nonprofit museum in Seattle, Washington dedicated to contemporary pop culture. Founded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen in 2000 as the Experience Music Project, MoPOP has showcased dozens of world-class exhibitions and offers extensive education and popular programming in music, film, gaming, and more.

The Museum of Pop Culture’s mission is to make creative expression a life-changing force by offering participatory experiences that inspire and connect our communities.

https://www.mopop.org/

More About the Science Fiction & Fantasy Hall of Fame

Website

  1. I had the story from an attendee at the ceremony. ↩


Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
acdha
6 hours ago
reply
Well earned
Washington, DC

Before Mark Kelly became a senator, he made millions speaking and consulting, records show - ABC News

1 Comment

The Arizona senator is a contender for vice president on the Democratic ticket.

Before Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly emerged as one of the lead contenders for vice president on the Democratic ticket, the former NASA astronaut earned more than a million dollars on the speaking circuit by regaling companies and colleges with tales of his triumphs in space.

Kelly, who was a U.S. Navy attack pilot before spending a decade as a NASA Space Shuttle pilot, earned more than $1.7 million in speaking fees over the two years before he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2020, financial disclosures show.

The senator, who has been floated as one of the possible candidates to be Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate, earned additional income from book deals and business consulting, according to the disclosures.

The $1.7 million came from 62 public speaking engagements from 2018 to 2019 -- during which time Kelly sometimes delivered multiple speeches per day in different states, records show. On Nov. 18, 2018, for example, Kelly made $72,250 from three separate speeches in California, Minnesota, and Oregon.

Among those that paid Kelly for speeches were the American Society of Dermatological Surgery, which paid him $25,500, Chobani, the yogurt company, which paid him $58,250, and the Sexual Medicine Society of North America, which paid him $29,750.

Kelly later returned $55,250 that he made from a speech for Pink Tank, a Dubai-based consulting company, after it was made public that the event was sponsored by the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi. At the time, a spokesperson for Kelly's Senate campaign said Kelly's speech was "focused entirely on Mark sharing experiences in space and discussing our countries' space programs."

In 2019, the Arizona senator also reported $1.5 million in income from Kelly Aerospace Consulting LLC, an Arizona limited liability company he registered in 2017, along with other income he earned from board member positions and from consulting.

The financial disclosures from that year show that Kelly held 16 positions for which he was compensated, including a position with Space X, the spacecraft manufacturer owned by Elon Musk.

According to disclosures from 2020 to 2022, Kelly stepped away from most of his board member positions and stopped doing paid public speaking engagements.

Since 2020, Kelly's income has mostly come from his investments and stocks, and from royalties and advances from his several books.

In 2021, Kelly reported six royalty agreements for books he has written or co-written, which include several children's books as well as the book "Gabby," a book written with his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, that recounts the 2011 mass shooting that left her partly paralyzed and with difficulty speaking.

Kelly's most recent financial disclosures are from 2022. He requested an extension to file his disclosures for 2023.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
acdha
6 hours ago
reply
The opposition research must be running dry when the best they can shop around is that former astronauts get paid to speak
Washington, DC

When Pundits Play Both Sides: A Tale of Two Kamala Harris Columns

1 Comment

On Tuesday, July 9, Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Jason L. Riley published a piece urging Democrats to dump President Joe Biden from the top of the presidential ticket and replace him with Vice President Kamala Harris. Aptly titled “Kamala Harris Would Be the Best Democratic Choice,” the article made a fairly straightforward argument that Biden was a “problem that need[ed] to be solved,” and that Harris was the party’s best option at this stage of the campaign.

Fast forward just two weeks, and Riley's tune has changed so dramatically it would give even the most nimble political gymnast whiplash. On July 23, Riley penned a new column with the telling title: "Kamala Harris Isn't the Change Democrats Need." This stunning reversal in such a short span of time raises serious questions about the nature of political punditry and the cynicism that often underlies it.

In his first piece, Riley argued that Harris could shift the campaign's focus away from Biden's age and back to issues Democrats prefer. He even cited polls showing Harris performing slightly better against Trump than Biden. Yet, mere days later, Riley now warns of Harris's "coastal progressivism" and past policy positions as potential liabilities.

This rapid about-face is more than just a change of heart; it's a textbook example of the intellectual dishonesty that plagues much of our political commentary. Riley, a conservative voice at the equally conservative Wall Street Journal, seems less interested in offering consistent, principled analysis and more concerned with stirring the pot, regardless of the direction.

Share

The cynicism on display here is breathtaking. Riley's initial column calling for Harris to replace Biden could be read as an attempt to sow discord within the Democratic Party. Now that this hypothetical scenario has played out, he's pivoted to undermining Harris's candidacy. It's a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach to commentary that does little to inform the public and much to muddy the waters of political discourse.

This kind of flip-flopping isn't just disingenuous; it's harmful to our political process. It contributes to a media environment where consistency and thoughtful analysis take a backseat to provocation and partisan gamesmanship. Readers deserve better than this intellectual sleight of hand.

As we navigate the complexities of the upcoming election, we must remain vigilant against such cynical maneuvers. Opinion columnists like Riley have a platform and a responsibility. When they abuse that platform to play both sides of an issue, they do a disservice to their readers and to the broader political conversation.

In the end, Riley's rapid reversal tells us less about Kamala Harris or the state of the Democratic Party than it does about the sorry state of some corners of political punditry. It's a stark reminder that we, as consumers of media, must always read critically and question the motivations behind the opinions served to us, especially when they come packaged in such blatantly contradictory wrapping.

The next time you read a political opinion piece, remember the Riley Reversal. Ask yourself: Is this a genuine analysis, or just the latest move in a cynical game of political chess? Our democracy depends on an informed electorate, and that starts with recognizing when we're being played.

[I reached out to Riley via email to ask how he reconciled his two contradictory columns, but did not hear back by the time this went to press.]

In the fast-paced world of 24/7 news and social media, a single word can ignite a firestorm. Yesterday, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade found himself at the center of such a controversy during a segment about Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

Kilmeade said (according to Kilmeade and Fox News): "The problem with Kamala Harris, number one, she has not had her record exploited heavily … and number two is she hasn't sat down for an interview. When she sits down for an interview and says, 'Do you want to fund ICE? Where do you stand on Medicare for All? Why didn't you show up?' — the most recent decision, you already gotta question. She will not show up for the prime minister's joint session of Congress today. She would rather address, in the summer, a sorority — a college sorority — like she can't get out of that."

However, the word "college" came out a bit muddled, sounding to some ears like "colored." This slight ambiguity was all it took for the incident to spiral into a full-blown controversy.

[You can hear for yourself. It’s about 52 seconds into this clip.]

The Twitter account Bad Fox Graphics posted: "Fox News Alert: @foxandfriends Goes Full Racist. BRIAN: She will not show up for the Prime Minister's joint session of Congress…She'd rather address in the summer a sorority, a COLORED sorority, like she can't get outta that!"

Suddenly, the claim that Kilmeade had said "colored" went viral. And I'll admit, that's what I initially heard, too. Even now, knowing that he likely said and meant to say "college," I still hear "colored" when I replay the clip.

This phenomenon is a textbook example of linguistic priming, and it's more common — and potentially more dangerous — than you might think.

Linguistic priming occurs when exposure to one stimulus influences our response to a subsequent stimulus. In this case, seeing the tweet that claimed Kilmeade said "colored" primed many listeners, including myself, to actually hear "colored" in the audio, whether or not that's what was actually said.

I wrote about this back in 2021 when a Colorado Rockies fan was falsely accused of yelling a racial slur (it turned out he was yelling for “Dinger,” the team’s mascot), something that was only confirmed after video of the incident became public.

This isn't an isolated incident. We see similar effects with miscaptioned protest videos or out-of-context sound bites. Once we're told what we're supposed to hear, it becomes incredibly difficult to hear anything else.

The science behind this is fascinating. Our brains are constantly working to make sense of the world around us, often filling in gaps or resolving ambiguities based on our expectations. When we're primed with certain information, it shapes those expectations, effectively changing what we perceive.

This has profound implications for how we consume media. In an era where misinformation can spread at the speed of a click, being aware of the priming effect is crucial. It's a stark reminder that we need to question our initial perceptions, especially in charged political contexts.

The Kilmeade incident also highlights the responsibility of those who create and share content online. The Bad Fox Graphics tweet, whether intentionally misleading or not, shaped the perception of countless viewers. In doing so, it potentially contributed to the spread of misinformation and deepened political divisions.

But let's be clear: this isn't about assigning blame. Rather, it's about recognizing our own susceptibility to these effects and developing the critical thinking skills necessary to navigate our complex media landscape.

So, the next time you see a controversial quote or hear a disputed audio clip, take a moment. Ask yourself: Am I hearing what's actually being said, or what I've been primed to hear? Am I seeing what's actually happening, or what the caption tells me is happening?

By being aware of linguistic priming and other cognitive biases, we can become more discerning consumers of media. In a world where information is power, understanding how our perceptions can be shaped is the first step towards being truly informed.

The Kilmeade controversy will likely be forgotten in a week, but the lesson it teaches us about media literacy should endure. After all, in the cacophony of modern media, the most important voice to listen to critically might just be the one in our own heads.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
acdha
6 hours ago
reply
This is the best example of the Wall Street Journal being the Wall Street Journal in ages
Washington, DC

Barr Pushed DOJ To Publicize Bogus Voter Fraud Claim Before 2020 Election, IG Finds - TPM – Talking Points Memo

1 Comment

Senior Trump DOJ officials issued multiple statements weeks before the 2020 election suggesting anti-Trump election fraud in a critical swing state, knowing all the while that no crime had likely been committed and that the main suspect faced a severe mental disability, a DOJ Inspector General report found.

You may recall the widely covered story of nine ballots cast by overseas military voters found in the garbage in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. On its face, the initial reporting seemed to affirm the most intense, right-wing fever dreams of widespread voter fraud.

Then-Attorney General Bill Barr directed DOJ officials to take the virtually unheard of step of releasing details about the investigation – including that several of the ballots contained votes for Trump – even though the case “would likely not be criminally charged,” the report found.

The episode came at the same time that Trump himself was fanning the flames with claims of supposed voter fraud in the 2020 election. In late September 2020, at the time of the Luzerne County reports and the DOJ response, Trump repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, citing bogus claims of voter frad.

It was in that environment that Barr and other senior DOJ officials acted. Per the report, Barr pumped Trump up with the juiciest details from the Luzerne County incident on Sept. 23, 2020. Several ballots had been found in the garbage, Barr told the President. They were military and, in a remark that was like waving red before a bull, they were pro-Trump. That same day, Trump refused to commit to the transfer of power. The next day, Trump went on a radio station and used the details Barr provided him about the investigation to rile up the public and reinforce Barr’s incorrect conclusions: mail-in ballots were a “horror show,” Trump said, and the DOJ would investigate.

The next day, senior DOJ officials – including U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania David Freed – released a statement falsely saying that nine pro-Trump ballots had been found discarded in the garbage, while adopting Trump’s language attributing the situation to “potential issues with mail-in ballots.” Freed was later forced to issue a follow-up statement clarifying that only seven ballots were for Trump; two remained sealed.

The report notes a key point: The DOJ’s public statements, and Barr’s private remarks to Trump, only mentioned the presidential race. But the discarded ballots included votes for all of the other races taking place in that region of Pennsylvania at the federal, state, and local levels, including auditor general and state treasurer. Barr, the report said, did not address questions from the inspector general about why he wanted Freed to include that the discarded ballots were cast for Trump. Freed, when asked about downballot races, told the IG “my concern was—the discussion around voter fraud had centered so much around the Presidential election.”

For more than a day, the report found, Freed and other senior officials had been aware of a key fact: The suspect accused of discarding the ballots had a mental disability, and, per one DOJ official interviewed by the IG, was working at the ballot processing station as part of a program for the disabled. FBI agents had interviewed the subject two days before the DOJ began to issue public statements; per the IG report, the agents found the subject “‘100% disabled’ due to a ‘vehicle accident'” and that the person was “not capable of following simple instructions.”

The IG report criticized Freed and other senior DOJ officials for issuing public statements about the case while knowing all this information, finding that he violated DOJ policy around commenting on criminal investigations before a charging decision is made and around consulting with the DOJ’s Public Integrity Unit before making a statement involving an election case.

But the IG found that Barr’s actions remained within the line, if by a hair, largely because of expansive regulations that empower the Attorney General to inform the public about investigations if the official believes it to be in the interests of justice to do so. The IG similarly found that Barr did not violate policy by telling Trump about the Luzerne County case because such briefings remain at the attorney general’s discretion.

The report found, however, that even if Barr did not violate any DOJ policy by the letter, his conduct was “unusual.” Barr did not cooperate with the investigation, responding to the IG in the form of two letters while declining to sit for an interview.

According to the report, Barr scheduled a call with Freed on Sept. 22, four days after Luzerne County officials first discovered the discarded ballots. In the intervening days, local law enforcement had contacted the FBI to investigate. Before the call, Freed emphasized to another U.S. attorney traveling with Barr at the time that the suspect in the case had been “working through some sort of program for, you know, mentally disabled people,” per the report.

The IG report is unclear on whether Freed told Barr the same thing on the call, but did say that the call seemed “fairly limited” in scope.

The next day, the report says, Barr met with Trump for a pre-scheduled event at the White House. There, he told Trump about the Luzerne County investigation and, per a letter Barr later sent to the IG, urged him to keep the information quiet.

The next morning, Trump did not do that. On the morning of Sept. 24, he told a radio host that “they found six in an office yesterday in a garbage can. They were Trump ballots—eight ballots in an office yesterday in—but in a certain state and they were—they had Trump written on it, and they were thrown in a garbage can. This is what’s going to happen. This is what’s going to happen, and we’re investigating that.”

Several hours later, Barr and Freed spoke again. This time, Barr directed Freed to issue a public statement about the investigation, emphasizing that all of the ballots had been cast for Trump and that they were all ballots submitted by overseas military voters. After the conversation, Freed agreed to issue the statement. It went through DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs, before going out to the public.

The statement, which erred in saying that all nine ballots identified were cast for Trump, when only seven were identifiable, caused an immediate outcry, both within DOJ and without. The head of the Election Crimes Branch of the Public Integrity Unit, the report says, told the IG that he was “appalled,” and that the language in the statement made it appear as if the DOJ was “taking sides” for Trump.

“I mean, if you had to make any statement at all, it didn’t have to be so partisan,” the report quotes the official as saying.

This is the second DOJ Inspector General report released in the past two days addressing longstanding allegations that Barr politicized the Justice Department while serving as Trump’s attorney general. It has been more than three and a half years since Barr stepped down as attorney general.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
acdha
6 hours ago
reply
I’m reminded for no reason at all of how civil servants get warnings not even to make a political tweet or donation from work, even if it’s on break time.
Washington, DC

Justice Kagan calls for a way to enforce Supreme Court ethics code - The Washington Post

1 Share

SACRAMENTO — Justice Elena Kagan said Thursday that she would support the creation of a committee of judges to examine potential violations of the Supreme Court’s new ethics code, speaking out on a contentious subject as President Biden and others are increasingly calling for reform at the high court.

Kagan suggested that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could appoint an outside panel of highly respected, experienced judges to review allegations of wrongdoing by the justices, some of whom have faced questions in recent years over unreported gifts of luxury travel, book deals and potential conflicts of interest in key cases.

Last fall, in response to criticism from Democratic lawmakers and outside experts about perceived ethics violations, Roberts announced that the court for the first time had agreed to abide by an ethics code specific to the justices. But the policy did not include a way to examine alleged misconduct, or to clear or sanction justices who might violate the rules.

Since then, a new round of ethical questions, and the court’s rulings this term, have increased calls for change.

Kagan, who was interviewed before a crowd of judges and lawyers at a judicial conference, said the code of conduct embraced by all the justices is a “good one,” but called criticism about the inability to enforce it “fair.”

“Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this one, this set of rules, does not,” she said, adding that “however hard it is, we could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this.”

Kagan emphasized that the high court does not have such a plan in the works and that she was speaking only for herself.

“This is one person’s view, and that’s all it is,” she said.

Kagan, one of three liberals on the high court, engaged in a wide-ranging, candid conversation at the 9th Circuit conference. It touched on her general dislike of the increasingly popular practice of individual justices writing separate opinions even when they agree with the outcome of a particular case; the court’s growing emergency docket; and her frustration with the majority’s willingness in recent years to overturn long-standing precedent.

She told the audience that she is more of a “wall slammer” than a crier when on the losing side of a particularly significant case — responding to a question about Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s recent revelation that she has wept at times after certain opinion announcements.

Kagan spoke less than a month after the conclusion of a momentous term in which the high court’s conservative majority greatly expanded presidential power while making it more difficult for government agencies to regulate vast areas of American life.

The court split along ideological lines in two major decisions: granting former president Donald Trump — and all presidents — broad immunity from prosecution for official actions, and tossing a 40-year-old precedent that had required judges to defer to government agency experts when deciding how to implement ambiguous legislation passed by Congress.

In the case involving Trump, two justices — Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.— dismissed calls to recuse themselves because of perceived potential conflicts of interest involving political activity by their wives.

Public confidence in the high court is at historic lows. Seven in 10 Americans think the justices make decisions based on their own ideologies, rather than serving as an independent check on the government, according to an Associated Press-NORC poll released in June.

Biden is preparing to endorse proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, The Washington Post reported this month. He is also considering whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders.

In his speech from the Oval Office Wednesday night, Biden said the issue would be a priority during his final months in office. “I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform, because this is critical to our democracy,” the president said.

During a news conference in front of the Supreme Court building Thursday, Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) touted the Judiciary Act of 2023, which would expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats and “quickly and correctly right the wrong that has brought us to where we are today,” Markey said.

Many conservatives and Republican lawmakers have opposed such changes, however, accusing liberals of trying to disrupt a court that has shifted dramatically to the right with the addition of three justices nominated by Trump. The changes Biden is talking about would be highly unlikely to pass unless Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House.

Kagan, who oversees the 9th Circuit, has established something of a tradition of reflecting on — and venting about — the just-completed term at the annual judicial conference. She was interviewed Thursday by Madeleine C. Wanslee, an Arizona bankruptcy judge, and Washington state attorney Roger M. Townsend, a member of the lawyer representatives coordinating committee for the conference.

The justice said she does get frustrated, disappointed and sad when she thinks the court’s majority “did not play by the rules of the judicial enterprise,” particularly when it departs from past precedent.

She predicted uncertainty and instability after the decision to curb federal agency power and overturn the long-standing precedent known as Chevron.

In that case, Kagan issued a forceful dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in which she said the majority’s ruling would lead to “breathtaking change” by shifting power to the courts and turning judges into the final arbiters on regulatory matters.

The framework established in Chevron has been used extensively by the U.S. government to defend regulations designed to protect the environment, financial markets, consumers and the workplace. The ruling was the third time in as many years that the court tossed precedent, overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022 and eliminating the use of affirmative action in college admissions in 2023.

Kagan wrote that the Chevron precedent was falling victim “to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.”

In another major case this term, the court voted 8-1 to uphold a federal law preventing domestic abusers from possessing guns. Five justices in the majority also chose to write separately, illustrating divisions over how lower courts should evaluate historical practices when reviewing Second Amendment challenges to other gun-related laws.

Such individual opinions, known as concurrences, prevent the court from “giving the kind of guidance lower courts have a right to expect, that the public has a right to expect,” Kagan said. “It muddies the waters of our decisions.”

With five different views, she added, “I don’t know how lower courts are supposed to deal with that really. Mostly I think they should deal with it by ignoring the concurrences.”

Tobi Raji in Washington contributed to this report.

Read the whole story
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories