You Don't Need A Massive Battery, Or Fast Charging To Give Up Gas: You Need To Change The Way You Think About Charging

https://jalopnik.com/evs-dont-need-massive-battery-fast-charging-1850784635 By Kevin Williams PublishedYesterday Comments (265) Image for article titled You Don't Need A Massive Battery, Or Fast Charging To Give Up Gas Photo: Kevin Williams/Jalopnik I’m not here to moralize or make guesses about your driving needs. Yet, I find myself constantly frustrated with the conversations we have about range and range anxiety. It’s not that they aren’t real, concerns – spending lots of money for a car that has less utility is not the move. But, the ever-insatiable desire for a big range number obfuscates the tradeoffs and drawbacks that come with making a battery big enough to meet the supposed range “needs” of consumers. Real world experience proves that limited-range electrification can be more than enough to get drivers off the teet of big oil – provided that they choose the right car. I recently spent a week with the Toyota Prius Prime and more than half of my 570-ish miles were done gas-free. Five of the seven days with the Prius Prime were done purely on electric power. Image for article titled You Don't Need A Massive Battery, Or Fast Charging To Give Up Gas Photo: Kevin Williams/Jalopnik Related Content Meet The Entrepreneur Who Hauls Motorcycles With A Prius These Are The 15 Best Cars Jalopnik Reviewed This Year In the real world, people do more with their cars than just complete a direct A-to-B commute, and nobody wants to be left stranded if an errand requires some extra driving. People want batteries that will leave them range to spare. In the age of the 300-mile EV, the Prius Prime’s 39-mile EV range (44 miles in lower-trimmed models with smaller wheels) may sound embarrassingly small. But think about it, how often are you driving more than 39 miles at once? How much time do you usually spend in the car? I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the average driver could use a Prius without much need for gas. Especially if they stick to the ABCs of driving a PHEV: “Always Be Chargin’.” Always Be Chargin’ is simple; wherever there’s an open plug, then, well, plug the car in. That could be an hour while at the gym, or two hours at a coffee shop. Or it could be 15 minutes or so while at the grocery store. The car doesn’t need to totally replenish its battery, but the energy replenished on even the smallest of stops is driving time that doesn’t require burning gas. All but one of the several coffee shops I frequent as a work-away-from-home space have level 2 charging. Level 2 charging spaces are also available at many grocery stores, shopping malls, gyms, etc. Sticking to the ABC plan during my week, what some call opportunistic charging, meant I didn’t use a single drop of gas for five of the seven days I had the Prius Prime, despite driving more than 250 miles. Image for article titled You Don't Need A Massive Battery, Or Fast Charging To Give Up Gas Photo: Kevin Williams/Jalopnik At the moment, PHEVs seem to be the red-headed stepchild in the electrification movement. Decried by EV people for not going far enough, some experts see them as a waste of resources, vehicles that do nothing well and tie up precious battery minerals that could be used on a full EV. For the anti-EV crowd, the increased price but limited full electric range seems like a waste of money. The consensus between the two groups is about the same – why pay all that money for a car that can’t even go all that far on electric power? Both arguments distract from the crux of the matter: you probably don’t drive all that much. Or, let’s look at it as a glass half full situation – limited range can take you way further than you’d think. I think the average driver’s perception of both time and distance is skewed. It can be hard to get a handle on how much time the average person spends behind the wheel. When I was still a full-time rideshare driver, I averaged about 900 miles of driving per week. Quick math shows that’s about 128 miles per day that I spent behind the wheel, roughly in 4 to 8-hour shifts. I wouldn’t wish that life on my worst enemy, but the fact of the matter is that spending 4 to 8 hours behind the wheel to travel around 200 miles makes you an extreme outlier among drivers. Spending more than, say, an hour and a half behind the wheel per day in one long stint is something that most drivers only do on weekends or for infrequent trips. Image for article titled You Don't Need A Massive Battery, Or Fast Charging To Give Up Gas Photo: Kevin Williams/Jalopnik The Prius Prime’s 39-mile range, in my experience, equates to about 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes worth of driving, nonstop, in varying traffic. I live in Ohio, where traffic is never all that bad. Of course driving 39 miles in bumper-to-bumper traffic in a place like LA, could take damn near all day, but the Prius’s 39 mile range is likely enough to meet the driving needs of most folks on most days. If you don’t believe me, just ask the U.S. Department of Transportation. It’s great that I was able to do so much driving solely on electricity, but that’s only half of the story here. The Prius Prime is able to get so much out of opportunistic charging because of its relatively small traction battery. New PHEV and EV models have mostly come to market in the form of big SUVs and luxury vehicles. These heavy vehicles will need more energy to cover the same distance as a smaller, lighter car – the 2024 Mercedes Benz GLE 450e is estimated to go about 40 miles on electric power, but it needs a 23.3 kWh battery to do so. That’s not quite 10 kWh larger than the 13.6 kWh pack in the Prius Prime. This might sound like a “no, duh” type statement, but a larger pack takes longer to charge - ruining one of the best parts of a good PHEV, the ability to recharge in a reasonable amount of time with no specialized equipment. Image for article titled You Don't Need A Massive Battery, Or Fast Charging To Give Up Gas Photo: Kevin Williams/Jalopnik Toyota says 11 hours to recharge the battery from flat to full, but in my experience, the Prius took about 9 and a half hours to recharge from flat to full on a standard NEMA 5-15 120V plug, set at the maximum of 12 amps. That’s roughly 1.3 kilowatts added to the battery, per hour. That means the Prius Prime can recharge its battery from empty to full, overnight, from a standard 120V outlet. In the era of PHEVs that can DC fast charge, that nine-hour number sounds long and unimpressive, but let’s reframe the conversation here. Nine hours is less time than most people spend at home between commutes. The larger battery EV and PHEV competitors would need more time to charge, or they’ll need expensive level 2 or DC fast charging services to match the Prius’s utility. The Prius’s 39-mile range could potentially be available for use, every single day, without any special equipment. Theoretically, the Prius Prime could do a staggering 273 miles of full-electric on standard home charging alone if the driver hits 39 miles every day. That’s above the 259 miles that Americans currently average per week. Over five years, a Prius Prime owner could potentially drive more than 70,000 miles, on full electric power alone just charging at night from a standard charger. And, unlike a limited-range EV, the Prius can be driven like a normal gas-saving hybrid during instances where the owner runs out of battery. For my week with the Prius, I drove 573 miles, including shopping, gym trips, and the long trip to a curvy road for some auto journalist testing shenanigans. I used 5.9 gallons of gas, averaging 100.5 MPG. That is impressive. If I had eschewed the one-off weekend trip, I probably wouldn’t have used any gasoline at all that week. True, not every car can be the Prius Prime. I suspect I would’ve had a harder time driving mostly on electric power with the RAV4 Prime, given the fact that its bigger battery and lower efficiency means that opportunistic charging and 110V home charging won’t do as much. MORE FROM JALOPNIK The Ford F-150 Lobo Could Finally Be Coming To The U.S. As A Performance Pickup Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale: This Is It Dead: Volkswagen GTI Manual And Volkswagen Golf R Manual Adam Driver Is Enzo Ferrari In New Trailer For 'Ferrari' The more experience I get with EV, PHEV, and hybrid cars, the more I realize that it really isn’t all that hard to just stop using gasoline, as long as you just plug in the damn car whenever you can. Keeping the Prius Prime charged was as easy as loading my dishwasher before bed, or plugging my iPhone into its charger. For my week with the car, using gas was optional. Given the state of our charging infrastructure, it’s nice to have options.

Giuliani Suffers MAJOR LOSS in Federal Court Order (MeidasTouch)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI7_DUN3V-U 2023/08/30 Rudy Giuliani was just hit with major default judgment sanctions by a federal judge in the Fulton County election workers Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss defamation case. Michael Popok of Legal AF explains why Giuliani was punished and why the judge is about to tell the damages jury that Rudy is hiding documents about his net worth.

Judge rules Giuliani liable in defamation of Fulton County election workers with false fraud claims (Fox5)

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/judge-sanction-giuliani-defamation-lawsuit-fulton-county-election-workers-fraud-claims FULTON COUNTY, Ga. - A federal judge has issued a default judgment against Rudy Giuliani in a defamation lawsuit filed by two Fulton County election workers and ordered him to pay more than $130,000 in attorney fees. In a decision Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell sanctioned the former New York mayor and Trump ally for failing to fulfill his obligation to provide evidence to the attorneys of election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea "Shaye" Moss. CFOs, Improve and Simplify your Business Processes Oracle NetSuite | Sponsored In her decision, Howell called Giuliani's actions the "willful shirking of his discovery obligations" by not providing information, saying he "has given only lip service to compliance with his discovery obligations and this Court’s orders by failing to take reasonable steps." "The bottom line is that Giuliani has refused to comply with his discovery obligations and thwarted plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ ArShaye Moss’s procedural rights to obtain any meaningful discovery in this case," Howell said. Howell ruled that Guiliani has now been to reimburse over $43,000 in fees and costs associated with Freeman and Moss' motion in court to receive information from Giuliani's businesses. The two had already won nearly $90,000 in attorney court fees for a previous motion. Freeman and Moss' lawsuit, which was filed in December 2021, accused Giuliani of defaming them by falsely stating that they had engaged in fraud while counting ballots at State Farm Arena in Atlanta. Rudy Giuliani speaks to the media after leaving the Fulton County jail on August 23, 2023 in Atlanta. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) The lawsuit says Giuliani repeatedly pushed debunked claims that Freeman and Moss — mother and daughter — pulled out suitcases of illegal ballots and committed other acts of fraud to try to alter the outcome of the race. Moss told the U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol that her life was shattered by the false accusations. She said she received hateful and racist messages, some "wishing death upon me. Telling me that I’ll be in jail with my mother. And saying things like, ‘Be glad it’s 2020 and not 1920.’" Freeman said in her testimony: "There is nowhere I feel safe." In a July filing, Giuliani conceded that he made public comments falsely making statements about ballot fraud, but argued that the statements were protected by the First Amendment. Giuliani’s statement was attached to a filing arguing that he did not fail to produce evidence in the case and should not be sanctioned as Freeman and Moss had requested. 'No regrets': Giuliani booked at Fulton County Jail Wednesday was a very busy day at the Fulton County Jail as several defendants indicted in the Georgia election investigation turned themselves in. FOX 5 was there before and after former attorney for former President Donald Trump and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was booked. Freeman and Moss filed a motion this month alleging that Giuliani had "failed to take any steps to preserve relevant electronic evidence." They know such evidence exists because other people provided it to them, their filing says. They asked U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington to impose sanctions. While Giuliani's lawyers argued that he did not fail to preserve or destroy any electronic evidence "because all pertinent documents were seized by the government" in April 2021 when the authorities executed a search warrant at his home and office, Judge Howell didn't agree. Wandrea ArShaye Shaye Moss, a Fulton County, Ga., elections worker, is handed a piece of candy by her mother, Ruby Freeman, while testifying during the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol fourth hearing Expand "His choice to make no effort to comply with the May 31 Order, or even file his two Stipulations prior to the June 30, 2023 compliance deadline, can be seen as nothing else than ignoring court orders," Howell wrote Beryl also ordered Giuliani, Freeman, and Moss to come up with three dates where the case can go to a jury to determine damages by 2024.

Rudy Giuliani is liable for defaming Georgia election workers, judge rules (POLITICO)

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/30/judge-rules-giuliani-is-liable-for-defaming-georgia-election-workers-orders-sanctions-00113462 By KYLE CHENEY and JOSH GERSTEIN 08/30/2023 11:10 AM EDT Updated: 08/30/2023 11:43 AM EDT A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Rudy Giuliani is legally liable for defaming two Georgia election workers who became the subject of conspiracy theories related to the 2020 election that were amplified by Donald Trump in the final weeks of his presidency. In an unsparing, 57-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell said Giuliani had flagrantly violated her orders to preserve and produce relevant evidence to the election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, resulting in a “default” judgment against him. She also ordered him to pay Freeman and Moss “punitive” damages for failing to fulfill his obligations. A jury will determine the amount of those damages. “Just as taking shortcuts to win an election carries risks — even potential criminal liability — bypassing the discovery process carries serious sanctions,” Howell ruled. Giuliani spent weeks accusing Freeman and Moss of manipulating ballots during Georgia’s vote counting process after the 2020 election, despite repeated investigations that debunked and discredited the allegations. The harassment that Freeman and Moss endured as a result of these conspiracy theories is at the heart of some of the criminal charges now facing several of Trump’s co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering case brought by Fulton County prosecutors. Giuliani is charged in that case, in part, for “false statements” to Georgia legislators related to his attacks on Freeman and Moss. Howell’s ruling is tied to Freeman and Moss’ separate lawsuit against Giuliani in federal court in Washington for defamation, civil conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Howell has now ordered the case to proceed to a trial purely to determine the amount of damages Giuliani will have to pay them. It’s unclear how much money the pair will seek in the trial, either in direct compensation for the damage to their reputations and other harms they faced or in terms of punitive damages — which in some cases can far exceed direct damages. The total might be influenced by what Giuliani does next. Howell’s ruling comes several weeks after Giuliani appeared to concede that he made false claims about Moss and Freeman, part of a bid to avoid having to provide additional evidence. But Howell said the carefully crafted admissions, contained in a court filing from Giuliani’s lawyers, “hold more holes than Swiss cheese.” Howell has given the former New York City mayor and former federal prosecutor until Sept. 20 to produce documents about his net worth, which she said he has dragged his feet on producing so far, as well as records from his companies related to the revenue produced by his “Common Sense” podcast. A spokesman for Giuliani had no immediate comment on the ruling. The election workers filed their lawsuit in 2021 against Giuliani and the owners of the conservative, pro-Trump One America News network, alleging that reports about claims the pair tampered with ballots were unfounded and libelous. One America’s owners settled with the two women last year for an unspecified amount, but the litigation has continued against Giuliani. Giuliani has insisted that his difficulties in searching his records related to the allegations against Freeman and Moss stemmed from factors like the FBI’s seizure of his devices in 2021 as part of a foreign-influence investigation that did not lead to any charges against him and serious personal financial difficulties he has faced since Trump’s defeat in 2020. “The FBI took every electronic device in my apartment and my law office,” Giuliani said at a May hearing in the suit. Indignantly insisting that he was not trying to deny the plaintiffs access to evidence related to their claims “I’ve been dealing with this for 50 years. I understand the obligation. …There’s nothing I want to hide. I’d like them to see everything. … Not being perfect doesn’t mean you’re deleting things. I don’t delete things.” MOST READ wisconsin-supreme-court-04555.jpg Wisconsin Supreme Court chief justice accuses liberal majority of staging ‘coup’ ‘Go after it’: GOP strategists say Republicans need to hit Biden on drug pricing No, Ohio Is Not in Play N.H. attorney general ‘carefully reviewing’ arguments that could keep Trump off state’s ballot First 10 drugs for Medicare price negotiations chosen Discover Puerto Rico Live Boricua SPONSORED BY DISCOVER PUERTO RICO When you go off the beaten path, what you find might just change you forever. #LiveBoricua See More After repeated requests by Giuliani, a Trump political action committee recently agreed to pay $320,000 to allow Giuliani to pay a vendor to perform searches for digital evidence related to the lawsuit. Howell’s latest ruling comes amid a renewed and assertive effort by Giuliani and his allies to convince Trump to foot more of Giuliani’s mounting legal bills, which now include not only civil lawsuits, but the criminal indictment in Georgia where Trump, Giuliani and others are charged with racketeering for allegedly trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state. Howell, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said in her ruling Wednesday that she considered it possible that Giuliani concluded that dodging his obligations related to the election workers’ lawsuit made sense strategically to avoid giving fodder to prosecutors or lawyers pursuing other cases. “Perhaps, he has made the calculation that his overall litigation risks are minimized by not complying with his discovery obligations in this case,” Howell wrote. “Whatever the reason, obligations are case specific and withholding required discovery in this case has consequences.” Howell also suggested that Giuliani’s complaints about the flurry of legal demands he is facing are theatrical and intended for political consumption. “Donning a cloak of victimization may play well on a public stage to certain audiences, but in a court of law this performance has served only to subvert the normal process of discovery in a straight-forward defamation case, with the concomitant necessity of repeated court intervention,” she said. “The fact that Giuliani is a sophisticated litigant with a self-professed 50 years of experience in litigation — including serving as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York — only underscores his lackluster preservation efforts.” Last month, Howell ordered the former mayor to pay nearly $90,000 of the election workers’ legal expenses due to what she found was noncompliance with her earlier discovery orders. In her ruling Wednesday, the judge ordered Giuliani and his businesses to pay an additional roughly $43,000 due to the failures. Those sums are separate from any damages a jury may impose.

Giuliani loses defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers (CNN)

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/8659201248668783680/1302689555096148219 Giuliani loses defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers A federal judge has determined Rudy Giuliani forfeits the defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers against him, a decision that could lead to significant penalties for the former Donald Trump attorney. Giuliani lost the case because he struggled to maintain access to his electronic records, partly because of the cost, and couldn’t adequately respond to subpoenas from attorneys for Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss as the case moved forward. The mother and daughter are asking for unspecified damages after they say they suffered emotional and reputational harm, as well as having their safety put in danger, after Giuliani singled them out when he made false claims of ballot tampering in Georgia after the 2020 election. ADVERTISING Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis. Former Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis surrender in election subversion case A trial to determine the amount of damages for which Giuliani will be held liable will be set for later this year or early 2024, Judge Beryl Howell of the DC District Court said on Wednesday. The damages could amount to thousands if not millions of dollars. Giuliani has already been sanctioned almost $90,000 for Freeman and Moss’ attorneys’ fees in the case, and Howell says the former New York mayor may be saddled with additional similar sanctions. Giuliani has been struggling financially, buried under 2020 election legal proceedings, a new criminal case against him in Georgia related to efforts to overturn the election and other matters. He has pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges in Georgia and has been released from jail on bond. Late last month, Giuliani conceded that he made defamatory statements about Freeman and Moss and that he didn’t contest their accusations that he had smeared them after the 2020 election. Donald Trump exits his private plane after arriving in Atlanta on Thursday, Aug. 24, 2023, where he was expected to turn himself in at the Fulton County Jail later in the evening. Takeaways from a busy and significant day in the Donald Trump criminal cases Giuliani’s statements about them, which Freeman and Moss say are false, included calling them ballot-stuffing criminal conspirators. Giuliani also drew attention to a video of them after the election, which was first posted by the Trump campaign and showed part of a security tape of ballot counting in Atlanta. On social media, his podcast and other broadcasts, Giuliani said the video showed suitcases filled with ballots, when it did not capture anything but normal ballot processing, according to the defamation lawsuit and a state investigation. Georgia election officials have debunked Giuliani’s accusations of fraud during the ballot counting. The mother-daughter duo has been candid about how their lives were impacted by Trump and Giuliani’s claims that they were guilty of election fraud. “There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States target you?” Freeman said last year in video testimony to the House select committee that investigated the events surrounding the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol. Rudy Giuliani, former lawyer to Donald Trump, arrives to federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, May 19, 2023. Rudy Giuliani made desperate appeal to Trump to pay his legal bills in Mar-a-Lago meeting Moss said her privacy was destroyed when she learned that Giuliani had accused her mother, Freeman, of passing some kind of USB drive to her like “vials of cocaine or heroin” as part of an elaborate vote-stealing scheme, she said. In reality, the object in question was a ginger mint. In his controversial call when he asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find votes to help him overturn his 2020 loss, Trump attacked Moss 18 times, and the former president called Freeman a “professional vote scammer” and a “hustler.” “I felt horrible. I felt like it was all my fault,” Moss said during her testimony last year. “I just felt like it was, it was my fault for putting my family in this situation.” She added that she and her mother were afraid to go outside or to the supermarket after getting threats “wishing death upon me, telling me that, you know, I’ll be in jail with my mother and saying things like – ‘Be glad it’s 2020 and not 1920.’” During Giuliani’s disinformation campaign about the vote in Georgia, the FBI recommended Freeman leave her home for her own safety, according to the lawsuit. This story has been updated with additional reporting and details.

Judge rules against Rudy Giuliani in Georgia election workers’ defamation suit

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/aug/30/trump-georgia-arraignment-trials-biden-idalia-politics-live-updates In July, Rudy Giuliani admitted in a court filing that he had made false statements about Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, the two Georgia election workers who were suing him for defamation. But as the Guardian’s Michael Sainato reported at the time, an attorney for Giuliani said the admission was just part of their legal strategy. “Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not acknowledge that the statements were false but did not contest it in order to move on to the portion of the case that will permit a motion to dismiss,” Goodman said. “This is a legal issue, not a factual issue. Those out to smear the mayor are ignoring the fact that this stipulation is designed to get to the legal issues of the case.” That strategy appears to have backfired today, after a judge found Giuliani liable for defaming them and issued a summary judgment against him, which could result in the former Donald Trump attorney paying substantial damages. In a hearing before the January 6 committee last year, Moss and Freeman detailed how the campaign against them upended their lives. Here’s the report from the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly on their testimony: In powerful and emotional testimony about the sinister results of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, a mother and daughter who were Georgia elections workers described how Trump and his allies upended their lives, fueling harassment and racist threats by claiming they were involved in voter fraud. Testifying to the January 6 committee in Washington, Shaye Moss said she received “a lot of threats. Wishing death upon me. Telling me that I’ll be in jail with my mother and saying things like, ‘Be glad it’s 2020 and not 1920.’” That was a reference to lynching, the violent extra-judicial fate of thousands of Black men in the American south. Moss also said her grandmother’s home had been threatened by Trump supporters seeking to make “citizen’s arrests” of the two poll workers. No Democratic presidential candidate had won Georgia since 1992 but Joe Biden beat Trump by just under 12,000 votes, a result confirmed by recounts. In her ruling today, federal judge Beryl Howell ordered Rudy Giuliani to pay $89,172.50 to reimburse attorneys’ fees for the two Georgia election workers who sued him. Decisions are expected later on the exact damages the former lawyer for Donald Trump will be expected to pay.

トランプ裁判予定日

いわゆる、トランプが訴訟の対象になっている「４つの刑事事件」では、まだどの裁判も始まってない。以下が裁判の最初の予定日。 ２０２４年３月４日：議会襲撃事件を含むアメリカ国家に対する犯罪 ２０２４年３月２５日：ポルノ女優との不倫の口止め料の不法な経理処理 ２０２４年５月２０日：国家の機密文書を不法に持ち出し所持していた犯罪 未定：ジョージア州の選挙結果を覆すために選挙管理者などを脅した組織的犯罪 そのほかトランプは民事訴訟などの対象にもなっていて、それらにはすでに有罪の判決が下されているものがある。 ２０２３年５月９日：E・ジーン・キャロル女史に対する性的暴力や名誉棄損で５００万ドルの罰金が科された。現在控訴中。ちなみに、この判決が下された直後、トランプは彼女が嘘つきであるなどとネット上に書き込んだため、さらなる名誉棄損罪で訴訟をされ、その裁判は２０２４年１月１５日に予定されている。 ２０２３年１月１２日：トランプの会社が脱税で１６００万ドルの罰金が科された。経理最高責任者は有罪をみとめ５か月の懲役に服した。

Trump’s trial calendar vs. the US political calendar

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/28/politics/trump-trials-primaries-calendar/index.html This is the current calendar Here are the known and potential Republican political contests in 2024, which I obtained from Ethan Cohen at CNN’s political unit, alongside Trump’s criminal trial dates (in bold). Cohen notes that multiple states have not yet finalized their primary or caucus dates and the ones listed in June, in particular, could move to earlier in the year. Plus, the trial for the Georgia case must still be added into the mix. January 15 – E. Jean Carroll civil defamation trial begins; Iowa caucuses January 23 – Possible New Hampshire primary February 8 – Nevada caucuses February 24 – South Carolina primary February 27 – Possible Michigan primary March 2 – Possible Michigan caucuses; Idaho caucuses March 3 – DC party-run primary March 4 – Federal trial on 2020 election criminal charges begins; North Dakota caucuses March 5 (Super Tuesday) – Primaries in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah caucuses, primaries in Vermont, Virginia March 12 – Primary in Georgia, Hawaii caucuses, primaries in Mississippi, Washington March 19 – Primaries in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio March 23 – Primary in Louisiana March 25 – Trump’s criminal trial in New York related to hush-money payments in 2016 begins April 2 – Primaries in Delaware, potentially New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin April 23 – Primary in Pennsylvania April 30 – Primary in Connecticut May 7 – Primary in Indiana May 14 – Primaries in Maryland, Nebraska, West Virginia May 20 – Criminal trial in classified documents case begins May 21 – Primaries in Kentucky, Oregon June 4 – Primaries in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota July 15-18 – GOP convention in Milwaukee

POLITICS Judge sets March 2024 trial date in Trump's federal case related to 2020 election

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-dc-trial-date-to-be-scheduled-judge/ BY ROBERT LEGARE, MELISSA QUINN UPDATED ON: AUGUST 28, 2023 / 7:55 PM / CBS NEWS Washington — A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has set a trial date for March 2024 in the case brought by the Justice Department against former President Donald Trump related to alleged efforts to thwart the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 presidential election. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who sits on the federal district court in Washington, said in a hearing Monday that the proposed trial date put forth by federal prosecutors — for the proceedings to begin in January 2024 — doesn't give Trump enough time to prepare. But the schedule suggested by the former president for the trial to take place in April 2026, well past the next presidential election, is "far beyond what is necessary," and risks witnesses becoming unavailable or their memories fading, Chutkan said. Instead, the judge said the trial will begin March 4, 2024. Chutkan's schedule means the proceeding, as it currently stands, will begin one day before Super Tuesday, a crucial date on the presidential election calendar when more than a dozen states will hold their presidential primaries. Trump is a Republican presidential candidate, undertaking his third bid for the White House. "I take seriously the defense's request that Mr. Trump be treated like any other defendant that appears before this court, and I intend to do so," Chutkan said. But John Lauro, the lead attorney for Trump, said the legal team could ask for a stay — or a pause — in the case, pending the resolution of legal arguments they intend to make. He said the March 2024 trial date would deny the former president the opportunity to have effective representation. Trump was indicted on four federal counts that amounted to an alleged scheme to try to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and stay in power. The former president pleaded not guilty to the charges earlier this month and claimed his prosecution by Smith is part of an attempt to harm his campaign. Trump is currently the leading candidate for the Republican nomination. The proposed trial dates put forth by the two sides straddled both sides of the 2024 presidential election and underscored their differences in how quickly they believe the pretrial process can move. Chutkan acknowledged at the start of the hearing that the two proposed schedules are "far apart," and said "neither of them are acceptable." She poured cold water on Trump's proposed April 2026 trial date, telling Lauro that "this case is not going to trial in 2026." The former president's other obligations should not impact the timing of his trial in Washington, the judge said. "Mr. Trump will have to make this trial date work … regardless of his schedule," Chutkan said. The former president's prosecution in Washington is one of four brought against him by federal and local prosecutors, and he is likely to spend much of 2024 navigating legal proceedings for his criminal cases and the election calendar. Trump is currently the only defendant charged as part of Smith's federal election-related probe — a stark contrast to the 18 others indicted with him in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' racketeering case in Georgia, which relates to alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state. In Georgia, where he is charged with 13 state felony counts, Willis proposed the trial there start on Oct. 23. Smith has also brought a separate federal case against Trump stemming from his handling of classified documents after he left the White House, which is based in the Southern District of Florida. That case is currently set to go to trial in May. He pleaded not guilty to the 40 charges brought by the special counsel. Trump is also charged with 34 state felony counts in New York, and the trial in that case is set for late March. Chutkan said she spoke with the judge overseeing that case, New York Judge Juan Merchan, about her intended trial date. Trump pleaded not guilty to all counts. As part of their argument for an April 2026 trial date, Trump's attorneys cited an "enormity" of evidence turned over by the government — in their filing this month they said it includes 11.5 million pages of documents — and what they said are novel legal issues that Trump's prosecution raises. Molly Gaston, a prosecutor on Smith's team, argued during the hearing that the discovery process is "substantially complete," as the government has turned over 12.8 million pages of material. She noted that most of the documents came from entities that were available to Trump, such as transcripts from interviews conducted by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol assault or materials from his 2020 campaign and political action committee. But Lauro called the Justice Department's proposed schedule a "request for a show trial." "For a federal prosecutor to suggest that we could go to trial in four months is not only absurd, but a violation of the oath to do justice," he said. Lauro said Trump's "liberty and life are at stake," adding that he is "not different than any American." Previewing the defense's next steps, Lauro said he intends to file a "unique and extensive motion" dealing with executive immunity, and plans to raise First Amendment issues. He indicated in interviews earlier this month that he will also embark on a long-shot effort to move the federal case out of Washington, D.C. Gaston, though, said Trump's social media posts underscore the need to hold a trial sooner than April 2026, and she warned his online statements disparaging potential witnesses and attacking the court's integrity could taint the pool of prospective jurors. The former president did not attend the proceeding, which marks the second time Trump's attorneys and the special counsel's office have appeared before Chutkan. At a hearing earlier this month, she issued a protective order in the case that limited the use and disclosure of "sensitive" discovery material and imposed a narrower set of restrictions on what information could be publicly disclosed than prosecutors had sought. The judge, an Obama appointee, also said that Trump has a First Amendment right to free speech, but acknowledged that this right "is not absolute." She said that as a defendant, the former president is bound by the conditions of his release, including laws against witness intimidation. Chutkan told Lauro that any questionable social media posts by his client would only serve to accelerate the trial schedule in order to protect the jury pool. Federal judges have broad powers to set trial and hearing schedules in cases over which they preside, and the judge's warning came as Trump was calling the case — and Chutkan herself — into question, accusing her on social media of being "highly partisan" and "very biased and unfair." The former president renewed his criticisms of Chutkan and Smith after his trial date was scheduled, calling the special counsel and his prosecutors "thugs" and the judge "Trump hating" in a social media post. "Deranged Jack Smith & his team of Thugs, who were caught going to the White House just prior to Indicting the 45th President of the United States (an absolute No No!), have been working on this Witch Hunt for almost 3 years, but decided to bring it smack in the middle of Crooked Joe Biden's Political Opponent's campaign against him," he wrote. "Election Interference! Today a biased, Trump Hating Judge gave me only a two month extension, just what our corrupt government wanted, SUPER TUESDAY. I will APPEAL!" It's unclear whether Trump can appeal the date set by Chutkan. Just one day after Trump posted on his social media website Truth Social "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!" a Texas woman left a threatening and racist voicemail for Chutkan, according to a criminal complaint filed against her. The woman, who was arrested and charged, allegedly said on the recording, "You are in our sights. We want to kill you" and warned, "if Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly b***h," according to the filing.

HYBRID CARS ARE THE FUTURE

Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow at Manhattan Institute, just released his latest report on electric vehicles, titled “Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream.” In his detailed 48-page report, Mills provides compelling evidence to support his thesis that proposed government mandates on tailpipe emissions will effectively eliminate gasoline-powered vehicles and force automobile manufacturers to produce primarily all-electric vehicles (EVs). Mills’ report confirms my view that plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), with a caveat, should ultimately win the day from a practical perspective in terms of providing the best option for most motorists, as compared to EVs and mild hybrids. Mills’ key argument — one that seems to be entirely lost on states that have instituted EV mandates — is that building out an all-EV infrastructure is entirely impractical. Only one-third of American households have a garage, which will require two-thirds of American households to use public DC “fast” chargers. The problem with these chargers, which are commonly rated at 150 kWh, is they can take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour to charge an EV from 10% to 80% (the wide range of charging times is due to the multiple variables that determine charging speed). The advertisements of “5% to 80% in 22.5 minutes” would only be true in a perfect world with a 350 kWh charger operating at their maximum rating. The claim is unrealistic and misleading, since public chargers often don’t charge at their maximum kWh rating, and no current EVs can charge at a full 350 kWh. https://mindmatters.ai/2023/08/hybrid-cars-are-the-future/ Given the long charging times of current battery technology, Mills notes that to achieve the same convenience in terms of waiting times at a filling station, four chargers would be required for each gasoline pump. This would mean filling stations would have to grow dramatically to accommodate the additional chargers, doubling the overall cost of building the average filling station. Since 99% of filling stations are not owned by “big oil” companies, but are small mom-and-pop businesses who make very little profit on gasoline, the all-electric mandate could spell the death of most of them — especially if one considers the number of electric vehicle chargers required to produce a steady stream of customers purchasing convenience store items, which is where most of the profit resides. Many people purchase EVs with the idea they are contributing towards reduced CO2 emissions to “save the planet” from the perceived negative effects of climate change. While it is indeed possible that EVs will reduce CO2 emissions (some estimate reductions up to 50%), it is not necessarily the case that an EV will lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions. While an EV emits no emissions itself during its lifetime, the “upstream” industrial process of acquiring the materials and processing them to make the battery requires enormous amounts of CO2 emissions — in fact, up to ten times as much as an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. Also, CO2 emissions from electricity production to power the grid for EV charging can vary widely and can even be as high as that of an ICE vehicle, all depending on how the energy is produced. Given such a high variability for both the upstream and downstream numbers, it is truly a guess as to how much CO2 emissions will decline as an increasing number of EVs take to the road. PHEVs, on the other hand, provide a balance for motorists with virtually no downsides (except for one that I will explain shortly). First, PHEV batteries are 1/5 to 1/6 the size of EV batteries, so the environmental degradation of building a PHEV battery is a small fraction relative to an EV. Second, if regularly charged at home or at work, daily commutes can be done while rarely running the gasoline engine, saving on money and CO2 emissions. When the battery is depleted, the gasoline engine kicks in, and the vehicle will operate the same as a hybrid. Thus, PHEVs have the advantages of an EV for short commutes while also having a gas engine for longer trips without worrying about hunting for a charger, being limited on range as with virtually all EVs, or being disappointed because a charger is either broken or doesn’t deliver at or near its kWh rating (which happens often here in Southern California). An advantageous feature of PHEVs is that the gasoline engine can charge the battery at higher speeds where it is at its most efficient, allowing the electric motor to power the vehicle at idle or slower speeds when the gasoline engine is at its least efficient. When the gasoline engine is charging the battery, fuel economy will be significantly lower as it is working harder to move the car forward while also charging the battery. Nonetheless, a PHEV not regularly charged will still deliver significantly better miles per gallon than either an all-gasoline or hybrid vehicle and when regularly charged, can rival an EV in overall efficiency since it combines the fuel economy of the electric motor and gasoline engine. Admittedly, a major current flaw with PHEVs is they are not designed to accept fast chargers, forcing motorists to use slower, 240 volt “Level 2” chargers. With a typical 18 kWh battery and an onboard charger that will accept 7.2 kW, it would take almost two and a half hours to fully charge the battery from 0% to 100%. If the car accepted fast charging, a standard 150 kWh charger operating at or near its rating could charge the PHEV battery from 0% to 100% in about 10 minutes. This would make PHEVs more compelling, especially on longer trips, since the typical stop at a gas station to fill a tank is around 10 minutes. If PHEVs were the preponderant vehicles, there would be no rush to build out an all-EV infrastructure, giving filling stations time to adjust and “right size” the number of fast chargers based on market demand rather than government mandates. EVs certainly have a role to play for those who can regularly charge at home and make few long trips (Tesla owners report having a great experience in this regard). Hybrids also have a role to play for those who don’t have a convenient method to charge either an EV or PHEV. Overall, however, I believe motorists would most benefit from the innovative technology of PHEVs, which can be produced by all major automobile manufacturers. Auto makers need to step up and address the one issue that makes these vehicles less practical — their inability to accept fast chargers. When they do, PHEVs will offer the best and brightest future for automobiles.

バイデンの経済

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=US ＧＤＰ成長 トランプ：＄２１３８Ｔ（２０１９）ー＄１８２１T（２０１５）＝＄３１７T（４年） バイデン：＄２５４６T（２０２２）ー＄２１３８（２０１９）＝＄４０８Ｔ(３年) （1 Trillion = 1兆）

「解決」がもつ唯一の武器は「民衆の知力を信頼して説得を続けること」だけ

外から見ていると「対決」のほうが「解決」よりずっとおもしろく、民衆の注目度は高くなり、権力を握ることが目的なら、それが一番手っ取り早いだろう。「解決」はそれに比べて地味だ。なぜなら「解決」は民衆に興奮ではなく思考をもとめる。しかし民衆はしばしば知識より興奮をもとめやすい。だから、現在「解決」が直面している課題はおおきい。なぜなら「解決」が実現するためには「権力」を必要とする、という現実的ジレンマに直面するからだ。「解決」はまずこの問題を解決しなければならないだろう。 ぼくは民衆の興奮が日本や世界の未来を決めるような状況に陥ることを危惧している。ぼくの考えでは「解決」がもつ唯一の武器は「民衆の知力を信頼して説得を続けること」だけだ。玉木さんに期待している。 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9f9JILzk_U

ジョージア州の陪審法（組織犯罪防止法）第16-14-4（c）に違反した罪で告発

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/1ccdf52e-1ba2-434c-93f8-2a7020293967.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5 The Grand Jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, do hereby charge and accuse: DONALD JOHN TRUMP, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, MARK RANDALL MEADOWS, KENNETH JOHN CI-IESEBRO, JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK, JENNA LYNN ELLIS, RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, MICHAEL A. ROMAN, DAVID JAMES SHAFER, SHAWN MICAH TRESI-IER STILL, STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE, HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD, TREVIAN C. KUTTI, SIDNEY KATHERINE POWELL, CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM, SCOTT GRAHAM HALL, and MISTY HAMPTON with the offense of VIOLATION OF TI-IE GEORGIA RICO (RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS) ACT, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(c), for the said accused, individually and as persons concerned in the commission of a crime, and together with unindicted co-conspirators, in the State of Georgia and County of Fulton, on and between the 4th day of November 2020 and the 15th day of September 2022, while associated with an enterprise, unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in, directly and indirectly, such enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(b), as described below and incorporated by reference as if fillly set forth herein, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof 下記の通り、ジョージア州の市民を代表して、前述の陪審員は次のように告発します： ドナルド・ジョン・トランプ、 ルドルフ・ウィリアム・ルイス・ジュリアーニ、 ジョン・チャールズ・イーストマン、 マーク・ランドール・ミドルズ、 ケネス・ジョン・チーズブロ、 ジェフリー・ボセール・クラーク、 ジェンナ・リン・エリス、 レイ・スタリングス・スミス3世、 ロバート・デイビッド・チーリー、 マイケル・A・ローマン、 デイビッド・ジェームズ・シェーファー、 ショーン・マイカ・トレジャー・スティル、 スティーブン・クリフガード・リー、 ハリソン・ウィリアム・プレスコット・フロイド、 トレヴィアン・C・カッティ、 シドニー・キャサリン・パウエル、 キャスリーン・オールストン・レーサム、 スコット・グラハム・ホール、および ミスティ・ハンプトン 彼らは、ジョージア州の陪審法（組織犯罪防止法）第16-14-4（c）に違反した罪で告発されます。前述の被告らは、個人としておよび犯罪の共犯者として、未起訴の共謀者とともに、ジョージア州フルトン郡において2020年11月4日から2022年9月15日までの間に、企業と関連して、組織犯罪活動の一連のパターンを通じて、O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4（b）に違反する形で、非合法に企て、参加しようとしました。これに関して以下に記載し、ここに完全に記載されているかのように組み込まれます。これは、前述の州の法律、秩序、平和、尊厳に反する行為です。 INTRODUCTION Defendant Donald John Trump lost the United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020. One of the states he lost was Georgia. Trump and the other Defendants charged in this Indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump. That conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity in Fulton County, Georgia, elsewhere in the State of Georgia, and in other states. 【序文】 被告人ドナルド・ジョン・トランプは、2020年11月3日に行われたアメリカ合衆国大統領選挙において敗北しました。その中で彼が敗れた一つの州がジョージアでした。本告発書に起訴されたトランプおよび他の被告人は、トランプが敗北した事実を受け入れることを拒み、彼らは故意に共謀し、選挙の結果を違法にトランプに有利なものに変えようとしました。この共謀は、ジョージア州フルトン郡、ジョージア州内の他の場所、および他の州で、2つ以上の組織犯罪行為を行うための共通の計画と目的を含んでいました。 THE ENTERPRISE At all times relevant to this Count of the Indictment, the Defendants, as well as others not named as defendants, unlawfully conspired and endeavored to conduct and participate in a criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia, and elsewhere. Defendants Donald John Trump, Rudolph William Louis Giuliani, John Charles Eastman, Mark Randall Meadows, Kenneth John Chesebro, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Jenna Lynn Ellis, Ray Stallings Smith III, Robert David Cheeley, Michael A. Roman, David James Shafer, Shawn Micah Tresher Still, Stephen Cliffgard Lee, Harrison William Prescott Floyd, Trevian C. Kutti, Sidney Katherine Powell, Cathleen Alston Latham, Scott Graham Hall, Misty Hampton, unindicted co-conspirators Individual l through Individual 30, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, constituted a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury. This criminal organization constituted an enterprise as that term is defined in O.C.G.A. § l6-14-3(3), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact. The Defendants and other members and associates of the enterprise had connections and relationships with one another and with the enterprise. 'The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members and associates functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise. The enterprise operated in Fulton County, Georgia, elsewhere in the State of Georgia, in other states, including, but not limited to, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and in the District of Columbia. The enterprise operated for a period of time sufficient to permit its members and associates to pursue its objectives. 【組織】 この告発状のこの項に関連するすべての時点で、被告、および被告として名前が挙げられていない他の者たちは、ジョージア州フルトン郡および他の場所で違法に共謀し、犯罪的な組織を運営し、参加しようとしました。被告人ドナルド・ジョン・トランプ、ルドルフ・ウィリアム・ルイス・ジュリアーニ、ジョン・チャールズ・イーストマン、マーク・ランドール・ミドルズ、ケネス・ジョン・チーズブロ、ジェフリー・ボセール・クラーク、ジェンナ・リン・エリス、レイ・スタリングス・スミス3世、ロバート・デイビッド・チーリー、マイケル・A・ローマン、デイビッド・ジェームズ・シェーファー、ショーン・マイカ・トレジャー・スティル、スティーブン・クリフガード・リー、ハリソン・ウィリアム・プレスコット・フロイド、トレヴィアン・C・カッティ、シドニー・キャサリン・パウエル、キャスリーン・オールストン・レーサム、スコット・グラハム・ホール、ミスティ・ハンプトン、未起訴の共謀者である個人1から個人30まで、および陪審員には知られているか、知られていないその他の人々は、そのメンバーおよび関係者が様々な関連する犯罪活動に従事した犯罪的な組織を構成しており、これには虚偽の陳述および文書、公務員のなりすまし、偽造、虚偽の書類の提出、証人の影響を与える行為、コンピューターの窃盗、コンピューターの侵入、コンピューターのプライバシー侵害、州を詐欺する共謀、窃盗を含む行為、および偽証などが含まれます。この犯罪組織は、O.C.G.A. § 16-14-3（3）で定義されるように、実際に関連付けられた個人のグループであるエンタープライズを構成しました。被告と組織の他のメンバーおよび関係者は、互いにおよび組織との関係を持っていました。このエンタープライズは、組織の目標を達成するための共通の目的で連携するメンバーおよび関連者として機能する持続的な組織を構成していました。このエンタープライズは、ジョージア州フルトン郡、ジョージア州内の他の場所、およびアリゾナ、ミシガン、ネバダ、ニューメキシコ、ペンシルベニア、ウィスコンシンを含む他の州、およびコロンビア特別区で運営されていました。このエンタープライズは、そのメンバーおよび関連者が目標を追求するために充分な期間運営されていました。 MANNER AND METHODS OF THE ENTERPRISE The manner and methods used by the Defendants and other members and associates of the enterprise to further the goals of the enterprise and to achieve its purposes included, but were not limited to, the following: 1. False Statements to and Solicitation of State Legislatures Members of the enterprise, including several of the Defendants, appeared at hearings in Fulton County, Georgia, before members of the Georgia General Assembly on December 3, 2020, December 10, 2020, and December 30, 2020. At these hearings, members of the enterprise made false statements concerning fraud in the November 3, 2020, presidential election. The purpose of these false statements was to persuade Georgia legislators to reject lawfill electoral votes cast by the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from Georgia. Members of the enterprise corruptly solicited Georgia legislators instead to unlawfillly appoint their own presidential electors for the purpose of casting electoral votes for Donald Trump. Members of the enterprise also made false statements to state legislators during hearings and meetings in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in November and December 2020 to persuade legislators in those states to unlawfillly appoint their own presidential electors. 2. False Statements to and Solicitation of High—Ranking State Officials Members of the enterprise, including several of the Defendants, made false statements in Fulton County and elsewhere in the State of Georgia to Georgia officials, including the Governor, the Secretary cf State, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Members of the enterprise also corruptly solicited Georgia officials, including the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to violate their oaths to the Georgia Constitution and to the United States Constitution by unlawfully changing the outcome of the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia in favor of Donald Trump. Members of the enterprise also made false statements to and solicited state officials in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 【エンタープライズの方法と手法】 被告およびエンタープライズの他のメンバーおよび関連者が、エンタープライズの目標を推進し、その目的を達成するために使用した方法と手法は、以下に挙げるものに限られませんが、次のようなものが含まれます： 州議会への虚偽の陳述と勧誘 エンタープライズのメンバー、特にいくつかの被告は、2020年12月3日、2020年12月10日、および2020年12月30日にジョージア州フルトン郡の議会で行われた聴聞会に出席しました。これらの聴聞会では、エンタープライズのメンバーは、2020年11月3日の大統領選挙における詐欺に関する虚偽の陳述を行いました。これらの虚偽の陳述の目的は、ジョージア州議員を説得して、ジョージアから選出された正当に選ばれた大統領選挙人によって行われた正当な選挙人投票を拒否させることでした。エンタープライズのメンバーは、ジョージアの議員に、ドナルド・トランプのために選挙人投票を行うために自分自身の選挙人を違法に任命するように誘惑しました。エンタープライズのメンバーは、また、アリゾナ、ミシガン、およびペンシルベニアでの11月および12月の聴聞会や会議中に、これらの州の議員に自分自身の選挙人を違法に任命するよう説得するために虚偽の陳述を行いました。 高位州役人への虚偽の陳述と勧誘 エンタープライズのメンバー、特にいくつかの被告は、フルトン郡およびジョージア州内の他の場所で、ジョージアの役人である州知事、州務長官、および州議会代表者院の議長を含むジョージアの役人に対して虚偽の陳述を行いました。エンタープライズのメンバーは、また、ジョージアの州務長官および州議会代表者院の議長を含むジョージアの役人を不正に誘惑し、彼らの誓約をジョージア憲法およびアメリカ合衆国憲法に違反するようにしました。ジョージア州内での2020年11月3日の大統領選挙の結果を違法に変更し、ドナルド・トランプに有利になるようにするためです。エンタープライズのメンバーはまた、アリゾナ、ミシガン、およびペンシルベニアの州役人に虚偽の陳述をし、勧誘しました。 3. Creation and Distribution of False Electoral College Documents Members of the enterprise, including several of the Defendants, created false Electoral College documents and recruited individuals to convene and cast false Electoral College votes at the Georgia State Capitol, in Fulton County, on December 14, 2020. After the false Electoral College votes were cast, members of the enterprise transmitted the votes to the President of the United States Senate, the Archivist of the United States, the Georgia Secretary of State, and the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The false documents were intended to disrupt and delay the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, in order to unlawfully change the outcome of the November 3, 2020, presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Similar schemes were executed by members of the enterprise in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. 虚偽の選挙人団文書の作成と配布 エンタープライズのメンバー、特にいくつかの被告は、2020年12月14日にジョージア州フルトン郡のジョージア州議会議事堂で、虚偽の選挙人団文書を作成し、個人を勧誘して虚偽の選挙人団の投票を行わせました。虚偽の選挙人団の投票が行われた後、エンタープライズのメンバーは、これらの投票をアメリカ合衆国上院議長、アメリカ合衆国公文書館館長、ジョージア州務長官、およびジョージア州北部地区のアメリカ合衆国地方裁判所の首席判事に送りました。これらの虚偽の文書は、2021年1月6日に行われる予定だった合同会議を混乱させ、遅延させることを意図しており、2020年11月3日の大統領選挙の結果を違法に変更してドナルド・トランプに有利になることを目的としていました。エンタープライズのメンバーによって同様の陰謀がアリゾナ、ミシガン、ネバダ、ニューメキシコ、ペンシルベニア、およびウィスコンシンでも実行されました。 4. Harassment and Intimidation of Fulton Countv Election Worker Rubv Freeman Members of the enterprise, including several of the Defendants, falsely accused Fulton County election worker Ruby Freeman of committing election crimes in Fulton County, Georgia. These false accusations were repeated to Georgia legislators and other. Georgia officials in an effort to persuade them to unlawfully change the outcome of the November 3, 2020, presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. In furtherance of this scheme, members of the enterprise traveled from out of state to harass Freeman, intimidate her, and solicit her to falsely confess to election crimes that she did not commit. フルトン郡選挙作業員ルビー・フリーマンへの嫌がらせと脅迫 エンタープライズのメンバー、特にいくつかの被告は、ジョージア州フルトン郡の選挙作業員ルビー・フリーマンが選挙犯罪を犯したと虚偽の告発を行いました。これらの虚偽の告発は、ジョージアの議員およびその他のジョージア州の公務員に繰り返し語られ、11月3日の2020年大統領選挙の結果を違法に変更し、ドナルド・トランプに有利になるように説得しようとしました。この陰謀を推進するため、エンタープライズのメンバーは他の州からフリーマンを嫌がらせ、脅し、彼女に選挙犯罪を虚偽の告白をさせるように誘いました。 5. Solicitation of High-Ranking United States Department of Justice Officials Members of the enterprise, including several of the Defendants, corruptly solicited highranking United States Department of Justice officials to make false statements to government officials in Fulton County, Georgia, including the Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. In one instance, Donald Trump stated to the Acting United States Attorney General, "Just say that the election was corrupt, and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen." 高位のアメリカ合衆国司法省の役人への勧誘 エンタープライズのメンバー、特にいくつかの被告は、高位のアメリカ合衆国司法省の役人を不正に誘惑しました。彼らはフルトン郡、ジョージア州の政府関係者、州知事、下院議会の議長、および上院の議長に虚偽の陳述を行うよう求めました。1つの事例では、ドナルド・トランプは、臨時アメリカ合衆国司法長官に対して、「選挙は不正だとだけ言って、後は私と共和党の議員に任せてくれ。」と述べました。 6.Solicitation of the Vice President of the United States Members of the enterprise, including several of the Defendants, corruptly solicited the Vice President of the United States to violate the United States Constitution and federal law by unlawfiilly rejecting Electoral College votes cast in Fulton County, Georgia, by the duly elected and qualified presidential electors fiom Georgia. Members of the enterprise also corruptly solicited the Vice President to reject votes cast by the duly elected and qualified presidential electors fiom several other states. アメリカ合衆国副大統領への勧誘 エンタープライズのメンバー、特にいくつかの被告は、アメリカ合衆国副大統領に対して、合衆国憲法および連邦法を違反するよう不正に誘惑しました。彼らはジョージア州フルトン郡で選ばれた選挙人団からの選挙人によって行われた選挙人投票を違法に拒否することを求めました。エンタープライズのメンバーはまた、他のいくつかの州から選ばれた選挙人団によって行われた選挙人投票を拒否するよう不正に副大統領に求めました。 7. Unlawful Breach of Election Equipment in Georgia and Elsewhere Members of the enterprise, including several of the Defendants, corruptly conspired in Fulton County, Georgia, and elsewhere to unlawfillly access secure voting equipment and voter data. In Georgia, members of the enterprise stole data, including ballot images, voting equipment software, and personal voter information. The stolen data was then distributed to other members of the enterprise, including members in other states. ジョージア州および他地域での選挙機器への違法な侵害 エンタープライズのメンバー、特にいくつかの被告は、ジョージア州フルトン郡および他の場所で、セキュアな投票機器と有権者データに違法にアクセスするために不正に共謀しました。ジョージア州では、エンタープライズのメンバーは、バラット画像、投票機器ソフトウェア、個人の有権者情報を含むデータを窃盗しました。窃盗されたデータは、他のエンタープライズのメンバー、他の州のメンバーを含む他のメンバーに配布されました。 8. Obstructive Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy and the Cover Up Members of the enterprise, including several of the Defendants, filed false documents, made false statements to government investigators, and committed perjury in judicial proceedings in Fulton County, Georgia, and elsewhere in furtherance of and to cover up the conspiracy. 陰謀の推進および隠蔽のための妨害行為 エンタープライズのメンバー、特にいくつかの被告は、陰謀を推進し、隠蔽するためにジョージア州フルトン郡や他の場所で虚偽の文書を提出し、政府の捜査官に虚偽の陳述を行い、司法手続きで偽証を行いました。 ACTS OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY AND OVERT ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY As part of and on behalf of the crimin'al enterprise detailed above, the Defendants and other members and associates of the enterprise committed overt acts to efiect the objectives of the enterprise, including but not limited to: RICO（Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act）違反の行為と陰謀の推進のための行動 上記で詳述した犯罪エンタープライズの一部として、被告およびエンタープライズの他のメンバーおよび関連者は、エンタープライズの目標を達成するために公然とした行動を起こしました。これには、以下を含むがこれに限定されません： Act 1. On or about the 4th day of November 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP made a nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election. Approximately four days earlier, on or about October 31, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP discussed a draft speech with unindicted co—conspirator Individual l, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. 行動1. 2020年11月4日前後、DONALD JOHN TRUMPは全国テレビで放送された演説で、2020年大統領選挙での勝利を虚偽に宣言しました。約4日前、2020年10月31日前後、DONALD JOHN TRUMPは、共謀の未起訴の共謀者である個人1（その身元は大陪審に知られている）と、虚偽の勝利宣言と虚偽の選挙詐欺主張を行うドラフトスピーチについて話し合いました。この演説は、陰謀の推進のための公然とした行動でありました。 Act 2. On or about the 15th day of November 2020, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI placed a telephone call to unindicted co-conspirator Individual 2, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, and left an approximately 83-second-long voicemail message for unindicted coconspirator Individual 2 making statements concerning fraud in the November 3, 2020, election in Fulton County, Georgia. This telephone call was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. 行動2. 2020年11月15日前後、RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANIは、身元が大陪審に知られている未起訴の共謀者である個人2に電話をかけ、約83秒のボイスメールメッセージを残しました。このボイスメールメッセージでは、2020年11月3日のジョージア州フルトン郡の選挙での詐欺に関する発言が含まれています。この電話は、陰謀の推進のための公然とした行動でありました。 Act 3. On or about the 19th day of November 2020, RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, JENNA LYNN ELLIS, SIDNEY KATHERINE POWELL, and unindicted coconspirator Individual 3, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, appeared at a press conference at the Republican National Committee Headquarters on behalf of DONALD JOHN TRUMP and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the "Trump Campaign") and made false statements concerning fraud in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Georgia and elsewhere. These were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. 行動3. 2020年11月19日前後、RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI、JENNA LYNN ELLIS、SIDNEY KATHERINE POWELL、および身元が大陪審に知られている未起訴の共謀者である個人3は、DONALD JOHN TRUMPおよびDonald J. Trump for President, Inc.（以下、「トランプキャンペーン」）の代表として、共和党全国委員会本部で記者会見を行いました。この記者会見で、彼らはジョージア州および他の場所での2020年11月3日の大統領選挙での詐欺に関する虚偽の陳述をしました。これらは、陰謀の推進のための公然とした行動でありました。 Act 4. On or about the 20th day of November 2020, DAVID JAMES SHAFER sent an e-mail to unindicted co-conspirator Individual 4, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, and other individuals. In the e—mail, DAVID JAMES SHAFER stated that SCOTT GRAHAM HALL, a Georgia bail bondsman, "has been looking into the election on behalf of the President at the request of David Bossie" and asked unindicted co-conspirator Individual 4 to exchange contact information with SCOTT GRAHAM HALL and to "help him as needed." This was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. 2020年11月20日前後、DAVID JAMES SHAFERは、身元が大陪審に知られている未起訴の共謀者である個人4を含む他の個人に対して電子メールを送りました。この電子メールで、DAVID JAMES SHAFERは、ジョージア州の保釈業者であるSCOTT GRAHAM HALLが「大統領の依頼でDavid Bossieの要請により選挙を調査している」と述べ、未起訴の共謀者である個人4に、SCOTT GRAHAM HALLと連絡先情報を交換し、「必要に応じて助けるように」と頼みました。これは、陰謀の推進のための公然とした行動でありました。 Act 5. On or about the 20th day of November 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUNIP and MARK RANDALL MEADOWS met with Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate Michael Shirkey, Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives Lee Chatfield, and other Michigan legislators in the Oval Office at the White House, and DONALD JOHN TRUMP made false statements concerning fiaud in the November 3, 2020, presidential election in Michigan. RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI joined the meeting by telephone. This meeting was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. 行動5. 2020年11月20日前後、DONALD JOHN TRUMPとMARK RANDALL MEADOWSは、ホワイトハウスのオーバルオフィスで、ミシガン上院多数党指導者のMichael Shirkey、ミシガン下院議会議長のLee Chatfield、および他のミシガン州の立法者と会合しました。DONALD JOHN TRUMPは、2020年11月3日のミシガン州の大統領選挙での詐欺に関する虚偽の発言をしました。RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANIは電話で会議に参加しました。この会議は、陰謀の推進のための公然とした行動でありました。

the Japanese people are a people with mixed diverse origins, formed from many waves of migrations from various locations in the remote past as well as in the more recent past.

In a nutshell, what we can evince and conclude from all the DNA data that has been presented is that the Japanese people are a people with mixed diverse origins, formed from many waves of migrations from various locations in the remote past as well as in the more recent past. https://heritageofjapan.wordpress.com/yayoi-era-yields-up-rice/who-were-the-yayoi-people/making-sense-of-dna-data-and-origins-of-the-japanese/

“プーチンの戦争”は歴史家への挑戦 「帝国の敗北で終わる」

「プーチン氏は歴史を通じてこの侵略戦争を正当化しようとした。それは、政治・軍事目標を達成するために操作された歴史だ」 「この戦争は帝国の敗北によって終わる」 こう断じるのは、ウクライナ出身の歴史学者、セルヒー・プロヒー氏です。 今回の軍事侵攻を「歴史家への挑戦」とも語るプロヒー氏。 ウクライナやロシア史研究の第一人者がみた“プーチンの戦争”とは？ （アナウンサー 井上二郎 / おはよう日本記者 吉田篤二 / 国際部記者 横山寛生） セルヒー・プロヒー氏とは セルヒー・プロヒー氏（66）は、ウクライナ南部のザポリージャ出身の歴史学者です。1996年からカナダの大学に所属、2007年からはアメリカのハーバード大学で教鞭きょうべんをとっています。 現在はウクライナ研究所の所長を務めていて、ウクライナやロシアなどの歴史研究の第一人者として知られています。 ウクライナ出身の歴史学者 セルヒー・プロヒー氏 2023年6月に北海道大学の招聘しょうへいで来日したプロヒー氏に、今回の軍事侵攻を歴史的な視点でどうとらえるべきなのか、聞きました。 プーチン氏の歴史観は？ なぜ、歴史からこの軍事侵攻をみるべきなのか。 私たちの問いに、プロヒー氏はある1枚の絵を出してくれました。 ロシア帝国時代に描かれた3姉妹とされる絵です。 そして、絵をもとに軍事侵攻に直結するプーチン氏の歴史観をひもときました。 この絵の中央は長女のロシア、両隣にいるのが妹のウクライナとベラルーシを表現しているといいます。 プーチン氏の考え方の根底には、19世紀、この3つがひとつの国家だったことがある、プロヒー氏はそう分析します。そして、ベラルーシの現状を踏まえて、ウクライナの危機を指摘します。 プロヒー氏 「『ウクライナ人はロシア人なので、存在しない、してはならない』ということです。ロシアが剣と十字架を持っていて、戦士として防衛し解放する役目を負っていますが、実は2人（ウクライナとベラルーシ）を捕らえているのです。 ベラルーシは事実上、ロシアの占領状態にあります。言語的・文化的・政治的に、より強力にロシア化されています。ウクライナも抵抗しなければ、ベラルーシと同じ運命になります」 いまウクライナは危機にある、そう警鐘を鳴らすプロヒー氏。 今回の軍事侵攻で「冷戦後の長い平和は終わった」とも指摘。新たに出現した世界、そして、歴史家がいま果たすべき役割、さらに日本の役割についても語りました。 （以下、プロヒー氏の話） なぜ、この軍事侵攻を歴史の観点からみるべきか この戦争には多くの歴史が詰まっています。プーチン氏が発表したウクライナとロシアの歴史に関する論文から戦争が始まり、彼は歴史を通して、この侵略戦争を正当化しようとしました。 ロシア プーチン大統領（2023年6月） プーチン氏の著作や発言に見られるのは、19世紀末から20世紀初頭にかけてのロシア帝国の作家たちの著作から直接もたらされたパラダイムや観念です。これは、ロシア人とウクライナ人が同じ民族であるという考え方の主なインスピレーションの源なのです。 そして、帝国時代の過去は、プーチン氏の思考に大いに影響を与えています。 モスクワで権力を握っている彼の世代の考え方は、旧ソビエトがロシア帝国と同様に超大国であった時代の後期の数十年の間に形成されたものだと言えます。それがロシアのあるべき姿のモデルなのです。 この戦争は文字通り歴史を作るものです。1991年のソビエト連邦の崩壊だけでなく、1914年の第1次世界大戦とロシア帝国の崩壊から始まった物語の続きです。 私にとって、これはかつての帝国の支配者が、かつての植民地、従属する領土を支配し続けようとする試みです。 そして残念ながら、20世紀にはその種の戦争が数多く起こされました。しかし、歴史上、いずれも帝国の敗北で終わっています。 “かつて”と“今”でプーチン氏は変化？ （就任した当初）プーチン氏は、ロシアが多極化する世界の1つの極になるという考えを前任者、特にプリマコフ元首相から受け継ぎました。 またエリツィン元大統領からは、ロシアは旧ソビエト諸国の中で、支配的な立場にあるべきだという考えを受け継ぎました。 エリツィン元大統領（左）と プリマコフ元首相 そして大統領1期目のとき、プーチン氏は軍事力を使わずに、経済的圧力や政治的な影響力でその目標を達成しようとしました。しかし、その試みは、それほどの結果を生みませんでした。 その後、プーチン氏が新たに試みたのが、ロシア国外での軍事力の行使でした。 つまり、旧ソビエト諸国でロシアの影響力を取り戻すための他の手段を持っていないことに気づき、軍事オプションを選んだのです。 ジョージアへ侵攻するロシア軍（ジョージア ツヒンバリ・2008年8月） この軍事侵攻の起源は？ 戦争は2014年2月、ロシア軍の特殊部隊によるウクライナ南部クリミアの議会と地方政府庁舎の占拠、そして半島の軍事占領によって始まりました。 クリミア バラクラバ（2014年3月） 最終的にはロシアによるクリミアの併合につながり、その後、東部のドンバスでは、いわゆるハイブリッド戦争が始まりました。 これに関してミンスク合意という、とりわけ停戦を課すための2つの合意がありましたが、その目標すら達成されませんでした。そのため、停戦ラインを越えた砲撃が長期間続きました。 確固とした和平が成立しなかったことを考えれば、2014年に始まった戦争だと言えるでしょう。 クリミア併合の際の欧米側の対応に問題があった？ そのとおりです。クリミア併合の際の欧米側の対応は実に弱かったといえます。 ロシアに対する制裁が導入されたのは、乗客の大半がEU諸国の市民だったマレーシア航空機撃墜事件（2014年）のあとでした。 ドイツのような主要国は経済協力を強化し、ガスパイプライン「ノルドストリーム2」の建設計画はクリミア併合のあとにできました。 もし、当時の制裁が今回のようなレベルだったら、このような戦争は起こらなかったでしょう。私自身はそう確信しています。 「ノルドストリーム2」の建設を推進した ドイツ メルケル前首相 プーチン氏はなぜ歴史にこだわるのか？ プーチン氏は、大国だったソビエトをロシアのモデルとしてきました。 クリミア併合で政治的に大成功をおさめ、国内の支持率は急激に上がりました。彼自身の考え方だけでなく、かなりの数のロシア国民が持つ「大国の地位と栄光を不当に奪われた」という感情を体現していたからです。 彼らはソビエト崩壊も西側のせいだと考えています。ロシア社会全体にこのような風潮があります。だからこの戦争はプーチン氏の戦争というだけでなく、ロシアの戦争なのです。 モスクワの市民ら（2023年6月） もうひとつの要因は、プーチン氏が四半世紀も権力の座にあり、おそらくもっと長く居座りたいと考えていることにあるでしょう。 ロシアに限らず、長く務めた政治家はレガシー（遺産）を求めます。プーチン氏はロシアの大国の地位を取り戻すこと、せめて失ったと思っている領土の回復をレガシーとして望んでいます。そしてそれで歴史書に載りたいと思っているのでしょう。 ただ、この戦争の成り行きを見ていると、彼が思い描くような書かれ方にはならないと思いますが。 ウクライナが勝つことはできるのか この戦争は『帝国崩壊の戦争』だと考えています。 1945年以降の近年の戦史を振り返ってみても、経済的、政治的、軍事的に強力な大国が、独立を果たそうとする弱小国に勝利した例は一つもありません。 この戦争で、ロシアが最新兵器を使い果たそうとしていて、武器製造もますます難しくなっていることも明らかになっています。その点からみても、ロシアの軍事力は著しく低下しているといえます。 一方で、ウクライナ側は、欧米からの多大な軍事支援により、おそらく世界でも最も軍事的能力の高い戦闘部隊を手に入れ、互角に戦っています。 ウクライナが受け取ったと表明した イギリスの主力戦車「チャレンジャー2」 今後、長く続く平和のためには、ウクライナ側に有利な形でバランスをとる必要があります。 以前の停戦合意は破られ、再び戦争が起こりました。今度こそ、停戦が必ず守られるような保証が、ウクライナにとっても、そして世界にとっても必要です。 世界はどこへ向かっていくのか？ 私たちは、海図のない海のような、未知の領域にいます。今回の戦争は、ベルリンの壁の崩壊から始まった「ポスト冷戦」の時代を終わらせました。 https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/special/international_news_navi/articles/qa/2023/08/10/33599.html 「ベルリンの壁崩壊」（1989年） 今日ウクライナで起きている戦争は、第2次世界大戦後、最大の戦争です。つまり、冷戦後の長い平和は終わったということです。 この戦争を通じて私たちは、ヨーロッパ、そして世界中で新しいブロックと境界が出現するのを目にしています。 東西冷戦時代にあったような西側諸国の同盟が復活し、ベルリンの壁やソビエトの崩壊以来、かつてないほど強くなっています。また、ロシアと中国の関係は、1950年代の冷戦の頃を思い起こさせるほど緊密になっています。 モスクワを訪れた中国 習近平国家主席と会談するプーチン大統領（2023年3月） ロシアが、プリマコフ元首相が主張したような「多極世界」の1つの極になろうと始めた今回の戦争の結果、世界は二極化に向かおうとしています。アメリカと、それからロシアではなく中国の2つです。 日本の果たす役割は？ アメリカは、軍事的にも経済的にも、冷戦時代のように他国と比べて強力な国ではありません。 もちろん多くの点では依然として世界最強の国ではありますが、比較としては弱くなっています。これが意味するのは、同盟国の役割が実際に非常に大きくなっているということです。 日本は長い間、アメリカにとって政治・経済・軍事協力のいずれの面においても、同盟国の中で最も安定し、不測の事態を起こさないメンバーであることを確実に証明してきました。 そして今やアメリカだけでなく、国際社会からも、日本やドイツに対して、積極的な役割を果たすよう求める声が多くあります。 ドイツ ショルツ首相（左）と 岸田首相 これはとても劇的な変化です。これは、1945年の第2次世界大戦終結後に生まれたパラダイムの変化だと思います。 その変化の中で、日本がどのような立場を取るかは、日本自身にとってだけでなく、世界情勢にとっても非常に重要です。 この混沌の時代、歴史家の役割は？ 私は歴史を人の記憶にたとえます。来た道を知らない社会は、進むべき道を容易に見失ってしまいます。 忘れっぽい人になってしまわないためには、社会全体を巻き込んだ幅広い議論がきわめて重要で、歴史家には特別な責任があると思います。 プーチン大統領がレトリックの中で利用しているのは、時代遅れの歴史というだけでなく、政治的・軍事的な目的のために操作された歴史です。 これは歴史家に対する挑戦です。いま歴史家は研究室や教室から出て、より幅広い人々に訴えかけることが求められています。こうしてテレビの取材に応じているのもそうです。 「ポスト真実」や「オルタナティブ・ファクト」と呼ばれる時代にあって、さらに人工知能の挑戦も受けています。これに応戦しなければ、歴史を悪用しようとする人たちに言論空間、そして社会全体が乗っ取られてしまいます。 歴史の悪用は非常に危険で、大規模な破壊と人の死につながりかねません。これが今、ウクライナで起きていることです。

Judge delivers mixed ruling on Trump protective order in 2020 election case

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-sides-trump-protective-order-2020-election-case The federal judge assigned to former President Donald Trump's 2020 election case has largely sided with Trump's defense attorneys on a protective order over evidence, but handed prosecutors a win by broadening which material is considered "sensitive" and should be protected. Trump's lawyers returned to federal court in Washington, D.C., on Friday morning for their first hearing before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Special Counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election meddling case against Trump. Chutkan heard arguments about the restrictions on evidence in the case. In court filings, prosecutors had argued for broad rules barring Trump's lawyers from sharing "sensitive" materials with the former president, including witness testimony to the grand jury and recordings and transcripts of Trump associates who spoke to prosecutors. Trump's attorneys countered that the government's request was too broad and infringed on Trump's First Amendment rights. In a "close" decision, Chutkan said she was not persuaded that the government has shown all information gathered in the case would fall under the protective order. She ruled that only information designated as "sensitive" should be protected — however, she agreed with the government that every single person interviewed by prosecutors is a potential witness and is sensitive. TRUMP'S ATTORNEYS ARGUE FOR LESS RESTRICTIVE RULES OVER EVIDENCE IN 2020 ELECTION CASE The E. Barrett Prettyman US Courthouse A date for the trial of former President Trump on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election is to be set at an Aug. 28 hearing at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., before U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images) "The defendant has the right to free speech, but that right is not absolute," Chutkan said at the onset of the hearing. "Without a protective order, a party could release that info to the jury pool." Federal prosecutor Thomas Windom said Friday the restrictions were necessary to prevent the "improper dissemination of materials … including to the public." "The defendant has set forth an intention to set forth any information that they deem informative," Windom told the judge. "Defense has broadcast their strategy, and that is not to try this case in this courtroom, and your honor should address that," he said. SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH PROPOSES JANUARY 2024 TRIAL IN TRUMP ELECTION CASE Trump attorneys Todd Blanche, right, and John Lauro, left, attorneys for former President Donald Trump, arrive at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Court House in Washington, D.C., on Friday. (Win McNamee/Getty Images) Chutkan agreed, but was hesitant to issue a blanket order. Trump's attorney John Lauro then argued that the government's request was "extraordinary." "We are in uncharted waters, we have a defendant running for president and his opponent has the DOJ bringing charges against him," Lauro said. "The fact that he's running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice," Chutkan replied. She suggested that Trump might release evidence about former Vice President Mike Pence's testimony, for example, to denigrate him as a witness. "The defendant's desire to respond to political opponents has to yield," Chutkan said. "There are limits. This is a criminal case. The need for this case to proceed in a normal order means there are going to be limits on the defendant's speech." Chutkan told Lauro that how a protective order might affect the presidential campaign was not her concern. "I cannot and will not factor into my decisions the effect it will have on a campaign for either side," she said. TRUMP TEAM ORDERED TO RESPOND TO SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH'S PROTECTIVE ORDER FILING Judge Tanya Chutkan U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is presiding over Special Counsel Jack Smith's case against former President Donald Trump for his alleged actions after the 2020 election and before the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. (US Marshal Service) Trump's legal team tried to persuade the judge that the government's request was so broad that Trump would not be able to respond to political attacks on the campaign trail without potentially violating the protection order. "Everything that we do here now is under a political microspcope, unfortunately because of what the government has done," he said. "There has to be fair play here. They haven’t even described the discovery, is it one terabyte, is it 3 terabytes. You can’t ignore the fact that there’s a campaign." "He will get his rights," Chutkan said. "The existence of a political campaign is not going to have any bearing on my decision. I intend to keep that out of my decision." Though Chutkan ultimately agreed with Trump's defense that not all the evidence gathered by the federal grand jury falls under the protection order, she decided witness interviews and other "sensitive" materials must be kept away from the public. "You’re conflating your client’s defense and what your client wants to do in a campaign," she told Trump's attorneys. "The former president engaged in a political campaign, talking about potential witnesses, who may not have the kind of protection that he has." "I can see a lot of problems here," she added. "I can see how in advance of trial making statements about potential witnesses could affect the orderly administration of justice and violate his release conditions." TRUMP, AIDE WALT NAUTA PLEAD NOT GUILTY TO NEW CHARGES IN CLASSIFIED DOCS CASE A court sketch of Donald Trump In this courtroom sketch, former President Donald Trump sits between his attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 3, 2023, as he faces charges before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya that he orchestrated a plot to try to overturn his 2020 election loss. At far left is Special Counsel Jack Smith. (REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg) Chutkan also compromised on a paragraph of the proposed order where a defense counsel would have to be present in the room if Trump were reviewing sensitive materials. The defense said the burden is too high, that they have too much to do and cannot sit in the room for hours while the defendant reviews materials. The judge said Trump can review materials without a defense attorney present but is not allowed to have his phone with him at the time, or any device that could copy or take a picture of the materials. Chutkan, an Obama appointee, has earned a reputation as the "toughest punisher" in Jan. 6 riot cases. The Associated Press reported that she has "consistently taken the hardest line against Jan. 6 defendants of any judge serving on Washington’s federal trial court." The Justice Department has brought more than 800 cases so far, marking the largest prosecution in the department's history. In seven cases, Chutkan even handed out tougher sentences than what the DOJ was seeking. She matched the prosecution's requests in four others and sent all 11 riot defendants who have come before her behind bars, the outlet notes. In four cases in which the DOJ did not seek jail time, Chutkan gave prison sentences ranging from 14 days to 45 days. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Trump faces charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights, which stem from Smith’s investigation into 2020 election interference and the Capitol Riot on Jan. 6, 2021. The 2024 GOP front-runner has pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Fox News' Brianna Herlihy and Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

Judge warns Trump: ‘Inflammatory’ statements about election case could speed trial

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/11/judge-warns-trump-speed-trial-00110870 By KYLE CHENEY 08/11/2023 12:22 PM EDT Updated: 08/11/2023 01:26 PM EDT U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan warned Donald Trump and his attorney Friday that repeated “inflammatory” statements about his latest criminal prosecution would force her to speed his trial on charges related to his bid to subvert the 2020 election. “I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case,” Chutkan told Trump lawyer John Lauro during a hearing. “I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.” Chutkan’s stark admonition came at the conclusion of her first courtroom session in the newest criminal case against the former president. The aim of the hearing was for special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors and Trump’s attorneys to hash out disputes about the handling of evidence in the case. Once Chutkan enters a so-called “protective order” governing evidence, prosecutors say they’re prepared to share millions of pages of documents with Trump’s team, jumpstarting the case and setting it on a path to trial. But Chutkan, aware of the national spotlight on her oversight of the explosive case, repeatedly emphasized that she intended to keep politics out of the courtroom and treat Trump like any other criminal defendant. That included potential consequences if he makes statements that could be construed as harassing or threatening witnesses. “The fact that he’s running a political campaign has to yield to the orderly administration of justice,” Chutkan said. “If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, that’s how it has to be.” “Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process,” Chutkan added later. “The more a party makes inflammatory statements about this case which could taint the jury pool … the greater the urgency will be that we proceed to trial quickly.” Trump calls indictments 'bulls---' in first rally since arraignment SharePlay Video The hearing was Chutkan’s first significant foray into the case, in which Trump stands charged with three conspiracies aimed at derailing the transfer of power to Joe Biden after the 2020 election. Trump has repeatedly assailed Chutkan, an Obama appointee, on social media and called for her recusal without citing a basis. Lauro, however, has not embraced Trump’s call. Trump has also made comments about Mike Pence in recent days that prosecutors have flagged, given Pence’s likely turn as a star witness in the trial. Chutkan said she was not ruling on any specific Trump statement but that she made her comments as a “general word of caution.” “To the extent your client wants to make statements on the internet, that has to yield to witness security,” she noted earlier in the hearing. Lauro repeatedly emphasized that Trump would “scrupulously abide by his conditions of release.” The hearing also laid the groundwork for prosecutors to unload a massive trove of evidence to Trump’s legal team. Senior assistant special counsel Thomas Windom said they were prepared to share 11.6 million “pages or files” to the defense as soon as today, an eye-popping figure that Chutkan joked was sure to influence Trump’s proposed trial date. Prosecutors, however, are seeking to bring the case to trial on Jan. 2, a rapid turnaround that they say is in the public interest. Windom emphasized that the large volume of evidence had been “extraordinarily” organized in a way that would make perusal simple for Trump’s team. The bulk of Friday’s proceedings were focused on parameters for Trump’s ability to review evidence in the case. Chutkan began by rejecting a proposal from the special counsel that would amount to a blanket prohibition on Trump’s ability to disclose any details of the evidence he reviews. “I don’t want this order to be overinclusive,” she said. “I don’t want to just issue a blanket protective order over information that is not sensitive.” Chutkan repeatedly emphasized Trump’s First Amendment right to speak his mind, especially as he campaigns for president. But she said her primary goal was to ensure “the orderly administration of justice.” MOST READ 2023-08-10 Trudeau-Gregoire-773-AP.jpg The Trudeaus take vacation — baggage in tow Staggering Ohio loss ignites an identity crisis within the anti-abortion movement House GOP weighs shutdown escape hatch: A deal with Dems Dems revive calls for Clarence Thomas resignation after new report IRS unable to locate millions of tax records, watchdog says “Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech. But that right is not absolute,” she said. “The defendant’s free speech is subject to the release conditions imposed at arraignment and it must yield to the orderly administration of justice.” Lauro repeatedly emphasized the politics hovering over the case, noting its influence on Trump’s campaign and the potential that prosecutors could accuse him of violating evidence-sharing agreements even during routine exchanges on the campaign trail with rivals that include Pence. This would advantage Biden’s reelection prospects, he said. But Chutkan said those considerations simply could not be a factor in her rulings, saying Lauro was “conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what your client wants to do politically.” “Your client’s defense is supposed to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet,” Chutkan said. Prosecutors also raised alarms about Trump’s proposal to be permitted to review sensitive evidence in the case without a minder from his legal team. “Defense counsel has a certain level of trust in the defendant that the government does not,” Windom said. “The defendant, when he only has the material to himself, could elect to photocopy or otherwise reproduce, take a picture of the sensitive materials. That risk is much lower when in the presence of [counsel] … He has shown a tendency to desire to hold onto material he knows he should not have.” Chutkan sided with the defense’s request to permit Trump to review sensitive evidence without a minder from his legal team, but said Trump would be required to review such information without any electronic devices capable of reproducing it, and his team would be required to review any notes he takes to ensure it doesn’t include the personally identifying information of witnesses. Chutkan sided with prosecutors who wanted to include “hundreds” of recordings of witness interviews and transcripts in “sensitive” materials that are barred from public disclosure. And she also rejected Trump’s team’s push to permit a significantly wider array of Trump aides to review evidence in the case, which Lauro said was necessary given prosecutors’ timeline and the extraordinary volume of material. “The definition you have currently is too broad,” she said. “It allows just about anybody. I live in Washington. Anyone is a consultant.”

双方中円墳、九州で初確認 福岡・うきは市の西ノ城古墳

https://www.nishinippon.co.jp/item/n/854643/ 双方中円墳、九州で初確認　福岡・うきは市の西ノ城古墳 2021/12/29 6:00 #うきは市#一面 渋田 祐一 拡大 発掘調査が進められている西ノ城古墳 拡大 九州初の双方中円墳とみられる西ノ城古墳。うきは市教育委員会が引いた黒線が古墳の範囲を示す 拡大 双方中円墳のイメージ図 拡大 西ノ城古墳のイメージ図 拡大 西ノ城古墳の斜面を覆ったとみられる「葺石」も見つかった＝11月、福岡県うきは市 拡大 発掘調査が進められている西ノ城古墳 拡大 九州初の双方中円墳とみられる西ノ城古墳。うきは市教育委員会が引いた黒線が古墳の範囲を示す 　福岡県うきは市で発掘調査中の西ノ城（にしのしろ）古墳が、円形墳丘の両端に方形墳丘が付いた「双方中円墳（そうほうちゅうえんふん）」とみられることが分かった。全国で数例しか確認されておらず、九州では初めて。出土した土器片から古墳時代前期初頭（3世紀後半）の築造と推定され、最古級の双方中円墳という。近畿や山陽の有力勢力と被葬者のつながりが推察され、専門家は当時の中央と地方の関係を知る重要な発見だと指摘する。 　西ノ城古墳は同市浮羽町の耳納（みのう）連山中腹にある。市教育委員会によると、円形墳丘は長径約37メートル、高さ約10メートルで、二つの方形墳丘を合わせた全長は約50メートル。円形墳丘の頂部では、板状の石を組んで造った埋葬施設が2基見つかった。壊された同様の埋葬施設を含めると、5基以上あったとみられ、弥生時代の集団墓の特徴を残す。一帯を治めた豪族と親族、側近らが埋葬されたと考えられるという。 　現場を確認した福岡大の桃崎祐輔教授（考古学）によると、双方中円墳は弥生時代後期の墳丘墓が発展し、4世紀ごろに築造が始まったとされる。確認例は奈良県天理市の櫛山（くしやま）古墳や香川県高松市の猫塚古墳など全国で数例。西ノ城古墳の発見で築造年代がさかのぼる可能性が出てきた。 　双方中円墳の原型とされるのが、弥生時代後期（2世紀後半～3世紀前半）に築かれた岡山県倉敷市の楯築（たてつき）墳丘墓。西ノ城古墳では「複合口縁壺」と呼ばれる土器の破片が出土し、似た形状の土器が瀬戸内地域や大分に分布するという。 　桃崎教授は「初期大和政権や瀬戸内の勢力は大分沿岸から日田盆地、筑後川を通って有明海へと抜けるルートを重視した」と指摘。西ノ城古墳の集団は、こうした交流の中で双方中円墳を取り入れたと推測する。 　同古墳は2020年、公園整備のための調査で見つかり、斜面を覆う「葺石（ふきいし）」が確認された。うきは市教委は本年度から本格的に発掘調査を開始し、来年度も継続するという。　（渋田祐一） 国家の形成過程分かる 　西谷正・九州大名誉教授（考古学）の話　双方中円墳は全国でも確認例が極めて少なく、西ノ城古墳は貴重な発見だ。大和政権が全国を支配していく中で、うきは地域の豪族も影響を受けたのだろう。古代国家の形成過程における中央と地方の関係を知る手掛かりになる。

Special Counsel Proposes January Date for Trump’s Election Interference Trial

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/politics/trump-jan-6-trial-date.html The prosecutors overseeing the indictment of former President Donald J. Trump on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election asked a judge on Thursday to set a trial date in the case for early January, laying out an aggressive schedule for the proceeding. In a motion filed to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who is presiding over the case in Federal District Court in Washington, the prosecutors said they were ready not only to go to trial on Jan. 2, but were also poised to give Mr. Trump’s lawyers the bulk of their discovery evidence in the next two weeks or so. The prosecutors further proposed that Mr. Trump’s lawyers submit their first pretrial motions in not much more than a month. Mr. Trump’s legal team will get to suggest its own timetable for the case next week and will surely object to the government’s proposal. If accepted, the accelerated schedule would make the election interference case the first of the three criminal cases that Mr. Trump now faces to be put in front of a jury. In their filing to Judge Chutkan, the prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, said the rapid pace was needed given the gravity and historic nature of the charges. Speedy trials, they said, are not just enshrined in law to protect the rights of defendants, but also to safeguard the public’s interest in the swift administration of justice. ADVERTISEMENT SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “It is difficult to imagine a public interest stronger than the one in this case, in which the defendant — the former president of the United States — is charged with three criminal conspiracies intended to undermine the federal government, obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election and disenfranchise voters,” Molly Gaston, one of the prosecutors, wrote. “Trial in this case is clearly a matter of public importance, which merits in favor of a prompt resolution.” In most criminal matters, the timetable for bringing a case to trial is an important but mundane process that revolves around questions including the complexity of the evidence, the number of defendants and the schedules of the judge, prosecutors and defense lawyers. Takeaways From Trump’s Indictment in the 2020 Election Inquiry Card 1 of 5 Four charges for the former president. Former President Donald Trump was charged with four counts in connection with his widespread efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The indictment was filed by the special counsel Jack Smith in Federal District Court in Washington. Here are some key takeaways: The indictment portrayed an attack on American democracy. Smith framed his case against Trump as one that cuts to a key function of democracy: the peaceful transfer of power. By underscoring this theme, Smith cast his effort as an effort not just to hold Trump accountable but also to defend the very core of democracy. Trump was placed at the center of the conspiracy charges. Smith put Trump at the heart of three conspiracies that culminated on Jan. 6, 2021, in an attempt to obstruct Congress’s role in ratifying the Electoral College outcome. The special counsel argued that Trump knew that his claims about a stolen election were false, a point that, if proved, could be important to convincing a jury to convict him. Trump didn’t do it alone. The indictment lists six co-conspirators without naming or indicting them. Based on the descriptions provided, they match the profiles of Trump lawyers and advisers who were willing to argue increasingly outlandish conspiracy and legal theories to keep him in power. It’s unclear whether these co-conspirators will be indicted. Trump’s political power remains strong. Trump may be on trial in 2024 in three or four separate criminal cases, but so far the indictments appear not to have affected his standing with Republican voters. By a large margin, he remains his party’s front-runner in the presidential primaries. But United States v. Donald J. Trump is not most criminal matters. It is not even the only criminal matter bearing that name. Mr. Trump has now been charged in Washington in the federal election interference case; in Florida in another federal case accusing of him of illegally holding on to classified materials after he left office; and in New York where he has been charged with 34 felonies related to a hush money payment to a porn actress. Next week, he could face indictment in a fourth case in Fulton County, Ga., in connection with his efforts to interfere with the election results in the state. Editors’ Picks These Clever Fish Have Mastered the Fakeout What if Your Town Doubled as a Private Power Grid? Aspen for Cheapskates SKIP ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT SKIP ADVERTISEMENT His courtroom calendar is quickly filling up. The New York case, filed by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, is set to go to trial in March. The classified documents case, which is also being handled by Mr. Smith’s office, is slated for May. If the prosecutors in the election interference case get their way and it goes to trial just after New Year’s Day, Mr. Trump could be obliged to be present in different courthouses in different cities throughout much of the winter and spring. That would be on top of his busy agenda of debates, donor dinners and campaign rallies related to the other matter occupying his time these days — running for country’s highest office. How Times reporters cover politics. Times journalists may vote, but they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. That includes participating in rallies and donating money to a candidate or cause. Did you find this information helpful? Yes No Some of the former president’s advisers have been blunt in private conversations that he is looking to winning the election as a way to solve his legal problems. And to that end, his lawyers have sought various ways to slow prosecutors in their race to get to trial and have tried to delay the various proceedings where they can. Last month, for example, they asked the judge in documents case, Aileen M. Cannon, to postpone that trial indefinitely, arguing that the proceeding should not begin until all “substantive motions” in the case had been presented and decided. At a subsequent hearing, the lawyers told Judge Cannon that she should push back the trial until after the 2024 election because, among other reasons, Mr. Trump could never get a fair jury in the maelstrom of news media attention surrounding the race. If either of the federal trials were pushed back until after the election and Mr. Trump were to win, it would open up the possibility for complications of a sort never seen before. He could try to pardon himself after taking office — a move that has never faced legal scrutiny — or he could have his attorney general simply dismiss the matter altogether. ADVERTISEMENT SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Speaking to reporters at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., on Thursday, Mr. Trump asserted that holding any of his pending trials before the general election in November 2024 would amount to interference. A Guide to the Various Trump Investigations Confused about the inquiries and legal cases involving former President Donald Trump? We’re here to help. Key Cases and Inquiries: The former president faces several investigations at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers. Here is a close look at each. Case Tracker: Trump is at the center of four criminal investigations. Keep track of the developments in each here. What if Trump Is Convicted?: Will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign? Can a convicted felon even run for office? Here is what we know, and what we don’t know. “The trial should be after the election because this is just election interference,” Mr. Trump said. “So if it’s before, you’re just playing into their hands.” In the few court filings they have written so far, Ms. Gaston and her colleague, Thomas P. Windom, have evinced a slashing style. In her scheduling motion, Ms. Gaston noted that John. F. Lauro, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, had claimed both on TV and in the courtroom that the government has been investigating the election interference case for “three and a half years” while the defense was “starting with a blank slate.” “Not only is this claim impossible, as Jan. 6, 2021, was two and a half years ago,” Ms. Gaston wrote, “but it is disingenuous.” ADVERTISEMENT SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Ms. Gaston also said in the motion that when Mr. Lauro made an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” this week — one of five Sunday shows he visited that day — he was “already planning which motions” he intended to file. She seemed to raise the issue anticipating that Mr. Trump’s legal team would object to the government’s proposed timetable as being too short to permit time for determining what kind of motions to submit. Ms. Gaston said the government expects presenting its evidence at trial to take no longer than four to six weeks. She also noted that prosecutors stood ready to start turning over discovery evidence as soon as a protective order governing its handling is put in place. Judge Chutkan has scheduled a hearing about the protective order for Friday. Ms. Gaston’s assertion that prosecutors could produce the bulk of the discovery in the case to Mr. Trump’s lawyers by Aug. 28 was a remarkable display of the government’s desire to move quickly toward a trial. The discovery evidence, she said, will include grand jury transcripts, recordings of interviews with witnesses, documents connected to search warrants and subpoenas, and unredacted materials from the Secret Service and the House select committee that investigated the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In a separate motion, Mr. Windom informed Judge Chutkan that the discovery disclosure would likely contain “a small amount of classified information.” He asked that the two sides discuss how to handle this material in a hearing governed by what is known as the Classified Information Procedures Act. Maggie Haberman and Alan Blinder contributed reporting.

ひとは不倫を非難するが・・・

ひとは福原愛の不倫を非難するが、人生の大きな苦しみの一つは愛のない人と一緒にいなければならないことであり、人生の大きな喜びの一つは愛する人と一緒にいること。そういう言葉をどこかの仏典で読んだことがある。愛のために生きることは簡単ではない。多くのひとは、社会の目を気にし、自分の心を否定し、うわべで社会の人をごまかして生きる。福原愛は自らの心に素直だからできたことだ。それは、幼いころ、彼女が卓球に向かっていった時のような純粋さを思い起こさせる。彼女の愛の決断が実を結ぶことを祈る。たとえ成功に終わらなくても、彼女の勇気にぼくは乾杯する。

Trump appears to stumble over his name and age at arraignment

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-arraignment-indictment-name-age-b2387456.html Donald Trump appeared to stumble over his words when he was asked to state his full name and age at his arraignment on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election. Mr Trump arrived at the E Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse in Washington DC on Thursday where he pleaded not guilty to four criminal counts of an alleged election hoax conspiracy that led to the January 6 riots at the US Capitol. Mr Trump, dressed in his trademark navy blue suit and red tie, entered the courtroom at 3.51pm accompanied by John Lauro, a veteran Washington-based criminal defence attorney, and Todd Blanche, the New York-based lawyer who is leading his defence in the other criminal cases against him. He was made to wait about 25 minutes before the magistrate judge entered the room at 4.15pm, and appeared nervous and fidgety. After attorneys for the government and defence introduced themselves, Mr Trump stood to take his oath from a courtroom deputy. US Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya then asked the former president to state his full name. “Donald J Trump — John — Donald John Trump,” Mr Trump replied hesitantly. He was then asked for his date of birth, and tripped over his words again. At first, he said “seven seven,” before correcting himself and saying “77”. After explaining his rights to remain silent and to legal representation, and reminding him of the lengthy prison sentence he faces if convicted, Judge Upadhyaya asked Mr Trump if he understood. He replied in the affirmative. Mr Lauro then entered a plea of not guilty on all counts on his behalf. Prosecutors did not seek to detain Mr Trump, and set a date of 28 August for a first hearing before Judge Tanya Chutkan. Mr Trump is not required to attend. In comments to reporters afterwards, Mr Trump described it as a “very sad day” before claiming Washington DC had deteriorated in the two and a half years since he left office. “This was never supposed to happen in America.... if you can’t beat ‘em, you persecute them,” he said. As his motorcade returned to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, it was met with a chorus of insults from a small group of protesters. “F** you, terrorist,” one man yelled, according to Wall Street Journal reporter Andrew Restuccia. Earlier this week, Mr Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in relation to his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

18 U.S.C. § 371—CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us#:~:text=The%20general%20conspiracy%20statute%2C%2018,manner%20or%20for%20any%20purpose. The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371). The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act. Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of "defraud" provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated: The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation. Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows: To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention. Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188. The general purpose of this part of the statute is to protect governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices. Section 371 reaches "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government." Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 128 (1987); see Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966). The "defraud part of section 371 criminalizes any willful impairment of a legitimate function of government, whether or not the improper acts or objective are criminal under another statute." United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir. 1989). The word "defraud" in Section 371 not only reaches financial or property loss through use of a scheme or artifice to defraud but also is designed and intended to protect the integrity of the United States and its agencies, programs and policies. United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1356 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see United States v. Herron, 825 F.2d 50, 57-58 (5th Cir.); United States v. Winkle, 587 F.2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 827 (1979). Thus, proof that the United States has been defrauded under this statute does not require any showing of monetary or proprietary loss. United States v. Conover, 772 F.2d 765 (11th Cir. 1985), aff'd, sub. nom. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987); United States v. Del Toro, 513 F.2d 656 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826 (1975); United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 821 (1973). Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371. The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the statements were false or fraudulent when made. The government is not required to prove the statements ultimately resulted in any actual loss to the government of any property or funds, only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions. See United States v. Puerto, 730 F.2d 627 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 847 (1984); United States v. Tuohey, 867 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Sprecher, 783 F. Supp. 133, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(þit is sufficient that the defendant engaged in acts that interfered with or obstructed a lawful governmental function by deceit, craft, trickery or by means that were dishonest"), modified on other grounds, 988 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1993). In United States v. Madeoy, 912 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1105 (1991), the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government and other offenses in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain loan commitments from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or Veterans Administration (VA). The court held that the district court had properly instructed the jury that: the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a scheme or artifice to defraud, with the objective either of defrauding the FHA or the VA of their lawful right to conduct their business and affairs free from deceit, fraud or misrepresentation, or of obtaining money and property from the FHA by means of false and fraudulent representations and promises which the defendant knew to be false. Madeoy, 912 F.2d at 1492. Prosecutors considering charges under the defraud prong of Section 371, and the offense prong of Section 371 should be aware of United States v. Minarik, 875 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1989) holding limited, 985 F.2d 962 (1993), and related cases. See United States v. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1993). In Minarik, the prosecution was found to have "used the defraud clause in a way that created great confusion about the conduct claimed to be illegal," and the conviction was reversed. 875 F.2d at 1196. After Minarik, defendants have frequently challenged indictments charging violations of both clauses, although many United States Courts of Appeals have found it permissible to invoke both clauses of Section 371. Arch Trading Company, 987 F.2d at 1092 (collecting cases); see also United States v. Licciardi, 30 F.3d 1127, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1994)(even though the defendant may have impaired a government agency's functions, as part of a scheme to defraud another party, the government offered no evidence that the defendant intended to defraud the United States and a conspiracy to violate an agency regulatory scheme could not lie on such facts). In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways: [cited in JM 9-42.001] They cheat the government out of money or property; They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.