Scott Pelley

 

In a statement responding to his firing from 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley condemned the politicization of the program, pressure to include bias and unverified claims, and the removal of senior leadership and fellow correspondents.

"There has never been anything in America like 60 Minutes. The Sunday tradition is the most successful program of any kind in history. For more than a decade, its innovative growth on every major online platform has extended its reach to countless millions around the world. This spring, at the end of our 58thseason, 60 Minutes grew rapidly with an unheard-of 9% jump in viewers on CBS.
 
"'60' has been the number one program in America for decades because our beloved audience finds integrity, quality, and humanity in our stories. When stewardship of the program passed to my colleagues and me, our responsibility was to expand energetically into a new age of media technology while preserving the values our audience expects. Now, the new owner of our network is casting this legend aside, apparently to curry a moment of favor with the Trump administration.
 
"The waste is heartbreaking. Last month, 60 Minutes lost its DNA when our entire senior leadership and two of our best on-air correspondents were cruelly fired without cause. Good people were silenced because they stood up for our audience. They stood for fairness against the forces of political bias; they stood for professionalism against chaos.
 
"For my part, new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I've been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 Minutes interviews is not how this is done. Finally, incompetence and unprofessionalism in the new management have wreaked havoc. In a case involving one of my stories, the entire program came within 19 minutes of not getting on the air at all.
 
"At 60 Minutes, we have fought harder than anyone knows to save the program that became an American icon. We owed that to our millions of viewers. I am deeply moved by the thousands of wishes we have received to 'keep up the good fight.' Most of the men and women of CBS News are still in that fight. But now the collapse of values at the top has become untenable. The leadership of 60 Minutes is no longer recognizable. The principles I hold dear are gone, and so I must leave as well.
 
"I depart after 37 years at CBS with one emotion—a heart brimming with gratitude for the men and women of CBS News who encouraged and enriched my work, very often at the risk of their own lives. I pray for a day when those people and their ideals are honored again—a day when sanity, competence, and courage return."

"We offer this model for you to make your own and pass along"

As I take a breath this summer, I have been thinking a lot about Ayana Elizabeth’s Johnson’s What If We Get It Right? I am sliding right into the next book project asking a similar question, propelled by the abundant riches of all the interviews I did for Poisoning Our Children. There is more to say than could fit in any one book. One of the most striking parts of Johnson’s book is the Climate Oath, which she appends towards the end of her rich and delightful miscellany. Do No Harm is a motto I have often quoted, particularly in conversations with healthcare providers, and it centers her oath. To the splendid idea of pledging fealty to people and planet, I have added my own thoughts about conscientious objection – something that sprung from a public debate on the aids and ills of AI with a colleague at Benedictine this Spring. The original Hippocratic Oath starts with swearing to the healing gods: we instead choose elements of life on Earth we hold particularly dear. Substitute in those that reverberate deeply with you, those you would be mortified to let down and elated to make proud. We offer this model for you to make your own and pass along: On the majesty of turquoise seas, and fireflies, and aspen trees, On the honor of our parents, our ancestors, and humans-to-come, On the wonders of laughter and sunshine, I make these devotions to climate solutions for my community and for our magnificent planet: First, move from “I” to “we.” We will expand our sense of interdependence. We will rein in our sense of individualism. We will ask, “What should we do, together?” Survival is collective, our fates are intertwined. Second, do no harm. We will restore and heal, not pollute and deplete. We will regenerate ecosystems and our own resolve. We will live lightly, as part of the Earth. Accountability, generosity, and sweetness. Third, less is more. We will expand our creativity and contract our consumerism. We will conserve and distinguish between needing and wanting. We will be gentle with our own imperfections and others’. There is such a thing as enough. Basta. Possibility exists. This is a world of our making. We can remake it, remix it, restore it, rebalance it. The path of least resistance is only one of many paths. I will be part of getting it right. We will be part of getting it right. (Johnson 2024) I will add the following: I am a conscientious objector to · War · Fossil Fuels · Pesticides · Plastics · PFAS · Tobacco · Fast Fashion · Ultra-processed food · AI · Gross Inequality · All industries that seek to mine the Earth, to extract the shared resources of our common home, ecosystem health, and human attention to the detriment of all, just to make more money for the already wealthy. I am a conscientious affirmer of · Truth and Justice · Equality · Thriving Ecosystems · Simple Living · Learning and Wisdom · Human Community and Connection · All those many people who are willing to work for the common good, serve others, and protect the living planet on whom we all depend. All flourishing is mutual. I pledge to try every day to choose the obvious good and leave the obvious bad, in adherence to these values. Reference: Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, What If We Get It Right? New York: One World, 2024. Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Jean-Marie Kauth is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Jean-Marie Kauth that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments. Pledge your support

Jean-Marie Kauth

 

 

A quick overview of the most important developments in Ukraine this week

 

 

✈️ Ukraine Gets Fighter Jets — 36 Gripens Are Coming                            On May 28, President Zelenskyy flew to Uppsala, Sweden, where he and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson announced the largest single Western fighter jet commitment of the entire war. Ukraine will receive 36 Swedish JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets — 16 donated Gripen C/D aircraft from the existing Swedish Air Force inventory, plus 20 newer Gripen E/F variants that Ukraine will purchase using €2.5 billion from the EU's Ukraine Support Loan. The 16 donated aircraft will be delivered in early 2027. 🔥 Russia's Deadliest Attack on Kyiv — Oreshnik Missile Used          Russia launched 90 missiles and 600 drones at Ukraine in one of the largest attacks of the entire war. Damage was reported in every district of Kyiv. At least 2 killed, 77 injured. Zelenskyy confirmed Russia used the nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile — only the third time in the full-scale war. 📍 On the Frontline — Ukraine Claws Back Territory                         Ukrainian forces recaptured roughly 104 square miles over the past 30 days. Russian forces recorded a net territorial loss in the April 28–May 26 period — a meaningful shift after months of grinding advances. Fighting continues near Pokrovsk, Kramatorsk, and Kupyansk. 🍞 Russia Bombed Humanitarian Food Supplies                                    Russia struck a frontline aid facility containing food for 130,000 people, destroying $1.4 million worth of supplies. This is what they target when they run out of military objectives. When you wear Ukrainian Apparel, you're standing with a nation that fights back — on the frontline, in the sky, and in the history books.​

 

"Trump’s past is finally catching up with him"

 

We’ve discussed Trump’s ongoing efforts to prevent the release of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on the now-dismissed classified documents prosecution against the president. That issue has now resurfaced. As we discussed at the time, Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump and has always ruled in his favor, was never going to order the release of Volume II of the Special Counsel Report, which covers the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago. But now the matter is in the hands of a different court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which has not hesitated to correct Cannon’s errors in the past.

There is a fascinating resonance between Cannon’s decision to prevent the release of Volume II and the issue we’ve seen surface in Trump v. IRS, the case whose “settlement” led to the creation of the slush fund Trump can use to give taxpayer dollars to January 6 defendants while erasing his and his family’s liability for debts owed to the government, like back taxes from tax audits. 

The common thread is cases where, instead of a legitimate adversarial process, with opponents duking it out in court, Trump is the actual party in interest on “both sides of the v.” In both of these situations, it’s Trump v. Trump, which leaves the president to decide what positions government agencies will take in these supposed legal conflicts. In the case of the special counsel’s report, DOJ, which would normally argue for its release, has taken Trump’s side. And Judge Cannon has played along.

On Inauguration Day, she issued an order blocking the Justice Department from sharing the Volume II with leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, who were set to receive it in accordance with the typical practice after a special counsel concludes their work. With DOJ on Trump’s side, there was no one to challenge it.

Then, in February in a piece appropriately titled, “If DOJ is Trump’s Law Firm, Aileen Cannon is his Judge,” we discussed Cannon’s next move. She ruled on what she characterizes as two “unopposed” motions, one by Trump, one by his co-defendants in the Mar-a-Lago case, both designed to prevent release of Volume II. 

At the time I noted, “If it weren’t such a serious matter, ‘unopposed’ would be funny—these motions preventing the routine release of a special counsel’s report are only unopposed because the Attorney General, who should have filed an opposition, lives in Trump’s hip pocket. Cannon has managed to hold up the release of Volume II for over a year at this point.”

While Judge Cannon was doing everything possible to prevent the release of Volume II, two groups of journalists, American Oversight and the Knight First Amendment Institute, asked to intervene in the case to ensure a truly adversarial proceeding, with the parties presenting opposing views on whether the report should be released. 

Cannon dealt with that by dragging her feet, simply refusing to rule on the request. That went on until November, when the matter reached the Eleventh Circuit and she was given 60 days to rule. The Eleventh Circuit pointed to “undue delay.” Cannon predictably ruled against permitting intervention, and the issue was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

Now, the Eleventh Circuit has ordered a briefing schedule on the requests to intervene and argue in favor of the release of the report. The timing is fast, with the next set of briefs due 14 days from the date of the order, and all of the briefing to be concluded by July.

The scheduling order is signed by Judge Nancy Abudu, who was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit by President Biden. The court will have to consider the issues once the briefs are in, but the ruling over Cannon’s foot dragging signaled they were out of patience with her efforts to keep her thumb on the scale for Trump. 

There is good reason to be optimistic here, even if the process takes time. Assuming the media entities are permitted to join the proceedings, there would still have to be briefing on the issue of release, but here again, Cannon was an outlier, and there is good reason to believe the Eleventh Circuit would not agree. DOJ’s accidental release earlier this year of a document detailing some of the work in the case gives us reason to believe there could be interesting material in the report.

Is it coincidence that two separate cases, involving two of the most important challenges to Trump’s ability to exert control over the government and pervert the rule of law, are coming to fruition at the same time? Perhaps so. 

But what’s at stake here is a core constitutional principle. Article III of the Constitution gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide actual “cases” or “controversies,” which means there must be opposing parties with conflicting interests. The Supreme Court has held that the “case or controversy” requirement means there has to be a genuine, active dispute between genuinely adverse parties for a court to have jurisdiction. Trump has elicited favorable decisions in both the IRS case and the release of the report case by trying to avoid that requirement. But it’s starting to look like time is up.

If this doesn’t sound like an enormous development, admittedly, it’s a bit inside baseball. But by forcing Trump to act within the confines of the rule of law, courts can create accountability. Refusing to let Trump him get away with using them as a sham vehicle for perpetrating frauds that allow him to extract government funds for his personal use or avoid accountability for past conduct is an important reassertion of real guardrails. The one-two punch of courts requiring him to face an actual adversary would be a welcome development.

Trump’s past is finally catching up with him.

Pieces like this one take time — tracking cases across multiple courts, connecting the legal dots, and translating what actually matters into plain English. If that kind of analysis is valuable to you, consider becoming a paid subscriber. It helps keep Civil Discourse going and keeps this work accessible to everyone who needs it. If you haven’t already, you can join for $6 a month, or $50 a year if you want to save a bit.

We’re in this together,

Joyce Vance

 

"Two hundred and fifty years... and to celebrate, we are building a wrestling arena on the White House lawn"

 

Two hundred and fifty… years of the most powerful, most resourced, most theoretically capable nation in the history of human civilization and here is what we have to show for it.

Forty million people on food stamps, thirty million without health insurance, the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world, the highest incarceration rate on earth, an opioid crisis that has killed over half a million people and counting, a housing market so broken that working people cannot afford to live in the cities they work in, an education system that buries young people in debt before they earn their first dollar, infrastructure that is literally collapsing, a life expectancy that is going backwards, a political system so thoroughly purchased by concentrated wealth that the laws it produces bear almost no relationship to what the public actually wants or needs, a working class that has not seen meaningful real wage growth in thirty years, a mental health crisis so severe we normalized it, a gun violence epidemic so routine we don’t even act when preschoolers are slaughtered, and a climate hurtling toward catastrophe while the people paid to address it collect checks from the industry causing it.

Two hundred and fifty years of that. And to celebrate, we built a wrestling arena on the White House lawn.

Not a hospital, or a school, or a housing development. Not a single fucking thing that addresses a single goddamn item on the list above. A wrestling arena. With cranes and pyrotechnics and a steel arch that probably cost more than the annual budget of three rural counties combined, erected in front of the building where Lincoln and Roosevelt and every president who ever tried to make any of this mean something once lived and worked and, in some cases, died trying. Truthfully, this is not a departure from American values. This is the fullest possible expression of them. Because this is what we chose. Every single time the choice was presented.

We built a culture where a football coach makes forty times what a physics professor makes and then expresses genuine bewilderment at the outcomes. Where a reality television star becomes president and a school district cuts its art program in the same fiscal year. Where children know every statistic of every player on their favorite sport team and cannot locate their own country on a map. Where scientific consensus on vaccines, climate, evolution, and basic nutrition gets weighed against a Facebook post and the Facebook post wins at the dinner table. Where the school that wins the state championship gets a parade and the school that produces a Nobel laureate gets a budget cut.

We chose the bomber over the teacher. The tank over the clinic. The aircraft carrier over the water treatment plant. We spend more on military than the next ten countries combined, including our allies, while veterans sleep on the streets of the cities they came back to. We built the most expensive killing apparatus in human history and then told the nurse she made too much money. We sent young men to die in wars that made defense contractors rich and called it freedom and put a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of the car and called that support. We made the soldier and the police officer into sacred untouchable symbols of national identity and then cut their benefits, denied their PTSD claims, let them die waiting for VA appointments, and sent them back for third and fourth tours because it was cheaper than taking care of them when they came home.

We worshipped the uniform and neglected the human inside it because the uniform is a symbol and symbols are cheaper than healthcare and housing and the therapy that would actually help. We built bases in a hundred and fifty countries and could not build enough affordable housing in fifty states. We funded a military budget that could have ended homelessness and medical debt and student debt several times over and we did it with bipartisan enthusiasm and called the people who questioned it unserious.

We chose entertainment over education so many times and for so long and at every available level of society that we forgot there was a distinction worth making. Spectacle over substance, performance over policy, the aesthetics of greatness in place of the actual thing, and the feeling of winning instead of asking what was being won and who was paying for it and what it would cost the people who came next. Rome had bread and circuses. We Americans have food stamps and a wrestling ring outside the Oval Office.

Two hundred and fifty years. This is what we built. This is what we chose. This is what we are celebrating. And the most perfectly, catastrophically, irreducibly American thing about all of it is that anyone pointing at this image and asking what it means will be called unpatriotic by people watching it on a television they bought on credit they cannot afford to pay back, rooting for a sport they cannot explain, in a country they cannot describe, celebrating a birthday they cannot contextualize, for a nation that has spent two and a half centuries confusing the noise it makes with the work it never did, all while claiming to be the greatest country on Earth.

Happy Birthday America! You have never looked more like yourself!

-Oliver Kornetzke

 

Shut down Trump’s corrupt slush fund

 

Trump’s second term has been marked by levels of corruption unprecedented in US history. But the regime’s creation of a $1.8 billion slush fund for the president to dole out to insurrectionists and other political allies is perhaps the most corrupt, lawless act of all. 

In the United States, Congress has the power of the purse. Only they have the constitutional authority to apportion funds. If a president can raid the treasury through sham lawsuits and dole out our taxpayer dollars as they choose, that’s an end-run around our constitutional order that makes the executive not a coequal branch of government, but an autocratic one.

Congress cannot accept this usurpation of its power and subversion of our constitutional order. There are already several pieces of legislation in Congress that could block this money and create guardrails around federal settlement funds. 

Every Member of Congress, regardless of party, should be opposed to this egregious overreach, and the good news is, members of both parties are. But we need to demand they go beyond concerned statements and actually act.  The slush fund not only threatens to reward people who attempted to overturn a free and fair election, it incentivizes Trump’s rabid supporters to try to help him do so again. 

And there’s no reason to expect this to be a one-time gambit. If Congress doesn’t act, Trump could sue his own administration again for some other imagined slight, order his underlings to settle, and draw new funds for whatever program or patronage system he wants to implement. 

But while the slush fund is unimaginably dangerous, it’s equally unpopular.  Polling shows that even a majority of Republican voters oppose it. The fund is so unpopular that it spurred a backlash on Capitol Hill and caused the GOP’s reconciliation bill to stall in the Senate last week. Vulnerable Republicans in Congress know that Trump’s corruption will be a liability in the midterms -- we need to keep up the pressure and make them act, if not for loyalty to their oaths of office, then in a desperate bid for political survival. 

Congress will be back in session on Monday. Let’s make sure when they return, their inboxes are flooded with demands to shut down Trump’s corrupt slush fund.

Email your Members of Congress

If you’ve already emailed your Members of Congress, you can drive the message home by calling as well. Click here to call your representative's office and then contact your senators here.

In solidarity,
Indivisible Team

P.S. -- Today, a federal judge temporarily halted payouts while legal challenges against the fund move through the courts. This is good news, but we still need Congress to act, and we need every Member of Congress on the record supporting or opposing the Trump regime’s corruption.

Email your Members of Congress and tell them to block Trump’s corrupt slush fund for insurrectionists.

 

Lawsuit could block Illinois' FOID law

 

The lawsuit, filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, targets the state's Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Act. The case, Laurent v. Kelly, argues that requiring citizens to obtain and carry a state-issued ID to simply own firearms violate Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [1, 2]

The Plaintiffs

Christopher Laurent (Navy Veteran) & Kim Dalton (Chicago Restaurateur): Both wish to keep firearms in their homes for self-defense but refuse to apply for FOID cards, arguing Americans should not have to seek government permission to exercise a constitutional right.

Justin Tucker: Holds a valid FOID card but objects to the mandate that requires him to physically carry it on his person whenever he is in possession of a firearm or ammunition. [1]

The Legal Challenge

The Core Argument: The lawsuit contends that Illinois and Massachusetts are the only two states that require a government-issued license to possess any type of firearm. The NCLA argues this "show your papers" mandate is an unconstitutional barrier to a fundamental right.

Second & Fourteenth Amendments: The suit alleges that the FOID law burdens residents with securing government approval before they are legally allowed to exercise their right to bear arms.

The Defendants: The lawsuit targets top state and county officials, including Illinois State Police Director Brendan F. Kelly, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Next Steps and Potential Impacts

Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to block the enforcement of the FOID law entirely across the state. If the federal court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could invalidate a licensing system that has been on the books since 1968. State officials are expected to respond, and the case could ultimately be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

-Lawsuit could block Illinois' FOID law | The Chicago Report