More stories

  • in

    ‘Somebody’s going to die’: Democrats warn of political violence after Paul Pelosi attack

    ‘Somebody’s going to die’: Democrats warn of political violence after Paul Pelosi attackDire warnings after hammer assault on speaker’s husband and amid concern that security does not adequately reflect threats Democratic politicians have ramped up their warnings about the threat of political violence in America after a man bludgeoned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 82-year-old husband with a hammer in their California home on Friday.The dire warnings come amid longstanding concern that security services provided do not adequately reflect ongoing threats, especially as midterm elections loom. The Associated Press reported on Sunday that Paul Pelosi’s assailant had been carrying zip ties when he broke in.“Somebody is going to die,” Debbie Dingell, a Democratic congresswoman from Michigan, told the news website Axios. Dingell said that in 2020, after Fox News’s Tucker Carlson broadcast a segment on her, “I had men outside my home with assault weapons that night.”Mike Quigley, a Democratic congressman from Illinois, similarly told Axios that the savage assault “is confirming what members know: we are completely vulnerable at a time when the risks are increasing.” Quigley also said: “We need more ways to protect members and their families.”Indeed, the attack on Paul Pelosi appeared to have been intended for Nancy Pelosi, –Joe Biden said on Saturday. Authorities said that the attacker demanded “Where is Nancy?”; the veteran congresswoman was in Washington DC with her security detail when the assault took place.On the day of the attack, a US joint intelligence bulletin warned that there was a “heightened threat’ to the midterm contests, fueled by a rise in domestic violent extremism, or DVE, and driven by ideological grievances and access to potential targets,” according to CBS’s Nicole Sganga.The man charged in the assault, David DePape, might have expressed his political ire – which largely mirrored far-right taking points – in recent online missives. An internet user with the handle “daviddepape” voiced support of the former US president Donald Trump and seeming belief in the conspiracy theory QAnon.Insurrectionists invaded and vandalized Pelosi’s office during the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol by extreme Trump supporters. The rioters had been inspired by the then president, attacking law enforcement in an attempt to overturn Biden’s win.Some Capitol rioters sought out Pelosi, shouting her name; she escaped with other politicians and subsequently spearheaded efforts to secure the Capitol so that Congress could certify Biden’s victory.New York City police warned on Thursday that extremists might target politicians, polling sites, and political events in advance of the 2022 midterm elections. Threats have increased dramatically in recent years, with the US Capitol police reporting that they investigated 9,625 threats against lawmakers in 2021 – an approximately threefold increase from 2017.“I’m a rank-and-file member who served on a Mueller investigation and had death threats,” Kelly Armstrong, a Republican representative from North Dakota, told Axios. “I think everybody has to take it seriously.”There have been steps taken to address increasing threats against members of Congress, such as the House sergeant at arms’ announcement in July that all US Representatives will receive a $10,000 security allowance, but these measures have been criticized as insufficient. Pramila Jayapal, a Democratic congress member from Washington, said this summer that the allotment would not cover the recommended security measures for her home, per Axios.There have also been calls for legislative solutions to security concerns, but the attitude toward these concerns might stall along party lines. Mike Sherrill, a Democratic lawmaker from New Jersey, has introduced a bill that would permit judges to protect their personal information, following a 2020 shooting in New Jersey that left a judge’s son dead and her husband injured.Should Republicans win a majority in Congress, however, Capitol security will change; Republican Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, has criticized the placement of metal detectors outside the House chamber following the January 6 attack. McCarthy has hinted that he would remove them if he were in charge, Axios noted.TopicsUS CongressUS midterm elections 2022US politicsHouse of RepresentativesUS SenateUS crimenewsReuse this content More

  • in

    A secret bathroom 911 call: how Paul Pelosi saved his own life

    A secret bathroom 911 call: how Paul Pelosi saved his own life House speaker’s husband told alleged intruder that he needed to use restroom and spoke in ‘code’ to alert authorities of problem Paul Pelosi, the husband of US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who was attacked with a hammer during an invasion of their California home, saved his life after secretly telephoning for help from the bathroom.According to Politico, Paul Pelosi told the alleged intruder – identified by authorities as David DePape – that he needed to use the restroom. Paul Pelosi’s mobile phone was charging in the bathroom at the time; the 82-year-old then made a surreptitious call to 911, and remained connected.The emergency services dispatcher, Heather Grimes, heard an exchange between Paul Pelosi and his attacker as he spoke in “code” to alert the authorities there was a problem. “What’s going on? Why are you here? What are you going to do to me?” Pelosi reportedly said while on the call.A suspicious Grimes then notified police for a wellness check.“It is really thanks to Mr Pelosi having the ability to make that call, and truly the attention and the instincts of that dispatcher to realize that something was wrong in that situation and to make the police call a priority so they got there within two minutes to respond to this situation,” Brooke Jenkins, San Francisco’s district attorney, told CNN.The San Francisco police chief, William Scott, said that officers arrived to the Pelosis home and saw Paul Pelosi and DePape holding a hammer. “The suspect pulled the hammer away from Mr. Pelosi and violently assaulted him with it,” Politico quoted Scott as saying. “Our officers immediately tackled the suspect, disarmed him, took him into custody, requested emergency backup and rendered medical aid.”Paul Pelosi suffered a skull fracture as well as injuries to his hands and right arm during the attack. He underwent surgery and is expected to fully recover.President Joe Biden said Saturday that it appeared the attack was targeting Nancy Pelosi. DePape allegedly said “Where is Nancy?” after invading their home.The attack on Paul Pelosi has intensified lawmakers’ calls for increased protection for their families. As threats against US politicians have risen sharply over the past several years, lawmakers are also seeing their families targeted.Lawmakers’ security details do not extend to their families when they are not with them. Some lawmakers have received supplemental protection from police departments in their home districts, but others have had to seek private security, CNN reported.TopicsNancy PelosiCaliforniaUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS crimefeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

    Biden says it appears attack on Paul Pelosi intended for House Speaker

    Biden says it appears attack on Paul Pelosi intended for House SpeakerSpeaker’s husband underwent surgery for skull fracture as political figures unite in condemnation of violence A man accused of clubbing the husband of the US House speaker, Nancy Pelosi,’ over the head with a hammer and threatening his life while demanding “Where is Nancy?” now faces charges of attempted murder and other felonies a day after the violent break-in at the couple’s San Francisco home.Attack on Pelosi’s husband heightens fears of increasing US political violenceRead morePaul Pelosi, 82, underwent surgery for a skull fracture and injuries to his right arm and hands, though doctors expect a full recovery.Joe Biden on Saturday afternoon said Pelosi was “doing better” after his surgery. The US president told reporters it looked like the attack had been intended for Nancy Pelosi and he urged all politicians to contemn political violence.The assault stoked fears about political violence less than two weeks ahead of midterm elections on 8 November that will decide control of the House of Representatives and US Senate, coming amid the most vitriolic and polarized US political climate in decades.The 82-year-old House speaker herself was in Washington with her protective detail at the time of the assault, but she flew back to San Francisco on Friday afternoon and went to the hospital.Police identified the man arrested at the scene by officers who intervened in the attack as David DePape, 42. He, too, was hospitalized with minor injuries, although police have spoken to him and he is expected to be formally charged by the San Francisco district attorney on Monday.He was booked into custody on suspicion of attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, battery, burglary and several other felonies.The San Francisco police chief, William Scott, told a Friday night news briefing that police detectives, assisted by FBI agents, had yet to determine exactly what precipitated the home invasion but said: “We know this was not a random act.“A statement from Nancy Pelosi’s spokesperson, Drew Hammill, said Pelosi’s husband had been attacked “by an assailant who acted with force, and threatened his life while demanding to see the speaker.”Scott said the intruder, wielding a hammer, forced his way into the Pelosis’ townhouse in the city’s Pacific Heights neighborhood through a rear door shortly before 2.30am on Friday morning.Police were dispatched after a cryptic emergency 911 call from the residence. CNN reported that Paul Pelosi managed to call 911 and used coded language as he spoke to the dispatcher.Scott credited the 911 operator with using her experience and intuition to “figure out that there was more to this incident than what she was being told” by the caller, so she dispatched police urgently. Scott called her decision “life-saving”.He recounted that police arriving at the scene caught a glimpse through the front door of DePape and Pelosi struggling over a hammer. As the officers yelled at both men to drop the tool, DePape yanked the hammer away and was seen striking Pelosi at least once, the chief said.The officers then arrested Depape. Scott condemned violence against politicians and their loved ones saying they “did not sign up for this” and called the attack on Pelosi “intentional and wrong”.“Everybody should be disgusted,” he said.In recent online posts, an internet user named “daviddepape” expressed support for former US president Donald Trump and embraced the cult-like conspiracy theory QAnon.The posts included references to “satanic pedophilia”, antisemitic tropes and criticism of women, transgender people and censorship by tech companies.He also railed against the prosecution of white former police officer Derek Chauvin, CNN reported, for the racist murder of George Floyd in 2020, a crime that sparked a racial reckoning and a reflowering of the Black Lives Matter movement.Older messages promoted quartz crystals and hemp bracelets. Reuters could not confirm that the posts were created by the man arrested on Friday.Friday’s incident came a day after New York City police warned that extremists could target politicians, political events and polling sites ahead of the midterm elections, and threats have risen sharply.US faces new era of political violence as threats against lawmakers riseRead moreThe US Capitol police said they investigated 9,625 threats against lawmakers from both parties in 2021, nearly a threefold increase from 2017, amid security concerns.Pelosi’s office was invaded and ransacked during the 6 January 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol by extremist supporters of Trump, who had been incited by the-then Republican president, as they attacked law enforcement and sought to overturn Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election. Some of those who invaded the building hunted for the speaker, calling out her name.She had escaped with other lawmakers and then from a place of hiding led efforts to get the halls and chambers of the Capitol re-secured and back in action so that Congress could certify Joe Biden’s presidential election victory, which it did in the early hours of 7 January.In January 2021, the Pelosis’ home was vandalized with graffiti saying “Cancel rent” and “We want everything” painted on the house and a pig’s head left in front of the garage, media reported.The home of the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, was also vandalized.McConnell contributed to bipartisan condemnation, saying he was “horrified and disgusted” by Friday’s violence.Trump’s vice-president, Mike Pence, whom insurrectionists threatened to hang on January 6, a notion reportedly endorsed by Trump, because he was willing to follow protocol and certify Biden’s victory, tweeted on Friday. He condemned the attack on Paul Pelosi as an outrage and said “there can be no tolerance for violence against public officials or their families.”Speaking at a campaign event in Pennsylvania on Friday evening, Biden told the crowd: “Enough is enough.“Every person of good conscience needs to clearly and unambiguously stand up against violence in our politics, regardless of what your politics are,” the US president said.Vice-President Kamala Harris was once the district attorney for San Francisco. On Saturday, she told an election campaign event in Baltimore that “there’s some scary stuff happening.”She said in place of vigorous but fair debate, “powerful people, so-called leaders, have been using the bully pulpit … to divide our country, in a way that is propagating hate,” adding that people needed to make their voices heard to articulate that “we won’t stand for that.”TopicsNancy PelosiSan FranciscoUS politicsUS crimenewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Barack Obama reacts to attack on 'good friend' Paul Pelosi – video

    At a rally in Georgia, Barack Obama commented on the violent attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband. The former US president said Paul Pelosi was a ‘good friend’ and condemned politicians who ‘stir up division to make folks as angry and as afraid of one another … for their own advantage’.
    Pelosi was attacked with a hammer after an intruder entered his home in San Francisco, demanding to see his wife, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who was in Washington. The attack has prompted fears of growing political violence in the US before the midterm elections on 8 November

    Paul Pelosi in hospital with skull fracture after attack

    Attack heightens fears of increasing US political violence More

  • in

    Pamela Moses sues officials after voter fraud conviction overturned

    Pamela Moses sues officials after voter fraud conviction overturnedTennessee woman was serving six-year sentence before prosecutors’ withholding of crucial document came to light A Tennessee woman who had a six-year prison sentence for voter fraud overturned this year is suing state and local officials for damages, claiming she was wrongfully prosecuted and incarcerated.Judge dismisses fraud case against Texas man who waited seven hours to voteRead morePamela Moses, a 44-year-old Memphis activist, was sentenced to six years in prison in January after prosecutors said she tried to register to vote knowing she was ineligible because of a prior felony conviction. She was convicted even though two government officials, including a probation officer who conceded he made an error, signed off on a state form affirming her eligibility. The case prompted national outrage .Moses’s conviction was overturned by a judge in February after the Guardian published documents underscoring the probation department’s error. Prosecutors did not turn over the document, an internal email from Tennessee’s department of correction blaming the probation officer for the error, to Moses’s defense before her trial.Moses spent 82 days in jail before her conviction was overturned. The prosecution caused her “mental anguish, emotional distress, stress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation and demoralization”, her lawyers wrote in a complaint filed in federal court last week.In 2015, Moses pleaded guilty to several felonies, causing her to lose her right to vote. But no one told her she was ineligible to vote and election officials never removed her from the rolls. It wasn’t until 2019, when Moses got into a dispute with election officials about her eligibility to run for mayor, that authorities noticed their error.Moses, believing she had completed probation, tried to register to vote. The local clerk and probation office signed off on her eligibility, even though Moses was still on probation for her felony. In Tennessee, a conviction for tampering with evidence – which is one of the offenses Moses pleaded guilty to in 2015 – permanently strips offenders of their right to vote.Moses accused Amy Weirich, the district attorney who handled the case, of knowingly withholding evidence that could have exonerated her. Weirich said earlier this year that the department of correction had not provided the document to her office. A spokesperson for the department said in February there was a “lack of recognition of the scope” of the documents that had been requested.Moses’s case is one of several instances recently in which prosecutors have levied voter fraud charges against people with felony convictions only to see the cases be dismissed months later. In Florida, a Miami man who was among 19 charged with voting fraud in a suite of cases heralded by Ron DeSantis had his case dismissed on Friday. In Texas, a judge also dismissed charges last week against Hervis Rogers, a Houston man who waited hours in line to vote and was charged with voter fraud because of a prior criminal conviction. Moses is the first defendant to sue prosecutors after her case was dismissed.She likely faces an uphill battle in court.“Suits about failure to disclose exculpatory evidence do face a high burden, as the supreme court underscored in the recent case of Connick v Thompson,” said Jeffrey Welty, a professor at the University of North Carolina’s school of government. He said he had not followed Moses’s case closely enough to opine on its merits, but in general, he said, “the court said that a plaintiff can’t just show a single incident of non-disclosure but must show a policy of deliberate indifference to defendants’ rights.“It looks like another part of the suit might allege malicious prosecution,” he added. “That requires a plaintiff to show that they were prosecuted without probable cause and with malice, which requires that the prosecution be brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose. The requirement of malice can be difficult to establish since the normal assumption is that when prosecutors charge people with crimes, they’re just doing their jobs.”Weirich, a Republican, lost her re-election bid last month to Steve Mulroy, a Democrat who brought up Moses’s case frequently on the campaign trail.The district attorney’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.Tennessee has some of the most restrictive laws in the US when it comes to restoring voting rights for people with felonies. About 471,592 people in the state, and more than 21% of its Black voting age population, cannot vote because of a felony, according to an estimate by the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice non-profit.TopicsTennesseeThe fight to voteUS politicsUS crimenewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump Organization to face criminal tax fraud charges in New York court on Monday

    Trump Organization to face criminal tax fraud charges in New York court on MondayFormer CFO is expected to testify about off-the-books compensation scheme to evade paying payroll taxes The Trump Organization is set to face criminal tax fraud charges on Monday in New York in a trial that could start to tease out the many allegations against the company and by extension its patriarch, Donald J Trump.It comes as the former US president faces a maze of legal troubles and mounting costs – by some estimates running at close to $4m a month to his leadership Pac – over his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss, the removal of government documents from the White House when he left office and a defamation case relating to a rape allegation.Republicans’ lawless leaders at odds with midterm law and order messageRead moreMonday’s case is centered on charges that his Manhattan-headquartered real estate company defrauded New York tax authorities by awarding “off the books” compensation over 15 years to company executives, including lease payments for cars, apartment rent and tuition fees for relatives in lieu of some salary, enabling the company to evade paying payroll taxes.If found guilty, the company, which is run by Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, could face $1.6m in fines and find its ability to operate hotels, golf courses and other assets impeded.But the trial will likely be most interesting for its subplots and how it intersects with a separate, civil investigation by New York state attorney general Letitia James that harvested a 200-page indictment last month accusing the Trump Organization, Trump and three of his adult children of overstating property values and Trump’s net worth to get favorable bank loans and insurance coverage.The Manhattan investigation into Trump’s company has followed its own rocky path to a jury trial. It began under district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr and is now in the hands of his successor, Alvin Bragg. Two prosecutors who led the investigation resigned in February, with one saying felony charges should be brought against the former president.Lawyers for the Trump Organization have claimed the case is a “selective prosecution” motivated by opposition to Trump’s political views – a claim that the judge overseeing the case, Juan Merchan, has rejected. They also said that prosecutors are seeking to punish Trump’s company because “a handful of its officers allegedly failed to report fringe benefits on their personal tax returns”.But the stakes for both parties – prosecutor and defendant – are high. Unlike Trump’s floundering efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, the Trump Organization has brought in an A-team of lawyers to counter claims by a matched array of prosecutors to meet a high burden of proof in criminal trials.Eyes and ears will be on the testimony of the Trump Organization’s then chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, 75, who was charged in the DA’s 2021 indictment but has since pleaded to 15 counts ranging from grand larceny to tax fraud to falsifying business records in exchange for his testimony.Weisselberg has been subpoenaed to testify but he is not a cooperating witness. Still, his five-month sentence agreed to with prosecutors depends on truthful testimony. Crucially, the Manhattan DA ensured that Weisselberg’s sentencing would be deferred until after the case.To prove the company is guilty, the government is entitled to impute liability from not only Weisselberg but also other executives at the firm, potentially including Donald Trump himself, who they may try to show were aware of the alleged tax scheme.“It’s strategically a really difficult case both for Weisselberg and Trump because they could end winning the battle and losing the war,” says Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at New York University.“If they do a typical defense cross-examination of Weisselberg and they catch him in some sort of lie then his deal is over and the pressure on him to flip [on Trump] is going to be that much greater.”Under the circumstances, the Trump Organization’s lawyers can’t simply try to eviscerate the credibility of Weisselberg, Weissmann points out, without potentially rewarding investigators with evidence that their larger quarry, Trump himself, knew of the arrangements to reward executives with untaxed compensation.“The idea that Trump didn’t know is going to be the critical thing that Weisselberg is asked about. If he denies that Donald Trump knew, you can see the judge saying, ‘I don’t believe it and I’m going to take that into account when I sentence you.’”Under those circumstances, Merchan could kick Weisselberg’s sentence up to 15 years in prison, not five months on Rikers Island – an onerous sentence for a 75-year-old.Further, Letitia James’s civil complaint makes an allegation that Weisselberg committed fraud by make false representations to the Zurich North American insurance company. In theory, Weisselberg could be still charged by Bragg if his testimony is deemed untruthful.“Clearly, they still want Weisselberg to cooperate,” Weissmann says.But as the trial gets under way next week, there is a sense that Bragg’s case could be easier to prove than James’s complaint, which centers on building valuations but requires a lower burden of proof.“Bragg’s allegations are much more concrete because they allege making payments that were clearly part of the person’s salary, keeping track of them, but only reporting what was listed as salary,” Weissmann says.“The problem for the defense is that if they say this is a gray area and isn’t a crime, they have to say that Weisselberg is lying. If the judge agrees, Weisselberg is in a tough position.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS crimeNew YorkDonald Trump JrUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Polly Klaas’s murder fueled the 90s crime panic. Her sisters fear ‘we’re repeating history’

    Polly Klaas’s murder fueled the 90s crime panic. Her sisters fear ‘we’re repeating history’ Jess and Annie Nichol want to undo the harsh criminal laws passed after their sister was abducted: ‘We don’t want our pain to be used to punish anyone else’Annie Nichol was seven years old on 19 March 1994 when she was brought to the White House to talk to Bill Clinton.With a stuffed dolphin by her side, the girl spoke to the president about her 12-year-old sister, Polly Klaas, who had been abducted five months earlier from the family’s home in Petaluma, California, while Annie was sleeping nearby.Annie and Clinton watched footage showing how she’d since booby-trapped her room with bells and ropes to stop intruders.“Do you think I’m going to live to grow up?” television cameras captured her asking the president.“You’re a brave girl,” Clinton responded, adding that he was working to make sure people with “serious problems” would remain in prison.Today, Annie is tormented by the memory. Polly’s kidnapping and subsequent murder fueled a host of “tough on crime” laws and a powerful victims’ rights movement, which pushed America to have the highest reported incarceration rate in the world.The meeting at the White House, Annie said, was a reminder of how her family’s story was exploited to expand mass incarceration and racial inequality in America.What’s Prison For? Concise diagnosis of a huge American problemRead more“I had just lost Polly and someone had given me that question to ask, and it was a message that wasn’t mine. I was a scared kid who had been through something I couldn’t even begin to process. Being put in the position of going to the White House to be on this television program and seeing Clinton start crying, the shame of that experience still overwhelms me. I was the perfect person to be used like that. What’s more compelling than seeing this scared little girl?”Annie and her older sister Jess are now on a mission to reclaim their family’s legacy and undo the harsh legislation the tragedy that befell them sparked. They say they want a different criminal justice system, one that focuses on preventing violence; accountability, treatment and rehabilitation for people who cause harm; and care and services for survivors.Their message is urgent, the sisters say, as growing concerns over crime in cities across the US since the pandemic have led to familiar calls for more punitive responses from pundits and some politicians facing midterm elections.“There’s the trauma of losing Polly and then there’s the trauma of how her death was used to punish other people,” Jess said. “We don’t want our pain to be used to punish anyone else … We’re on the precipice of repeating a really terrible history. And we don’t want people to make the same mistake.”On the evening of 1 October 1993, Polly was playing a board game at home with two friends when a stranger broke in and snatched her, leaving the two other girls behind.Jess and Annie, aged 12 and six at the time, recall fragments of the aftermath: the reporters camped outside their door, the “Polly, we love you” T-shirts worn by everyone in town, their visits with Winona Ryder, who grew up in Petaluma.Two months after the abduction, the kidnapper led authorities to Polly’s body.Polly’s story led to panic. American media covered every twist in the investigation of the “slumber party that became a nightmare”. Commentators argued the “age of innocence had been lost” and that “the 12-year-old’s awful fate drove home the disturbing message that youngsters are not safe even in their own bedrooms”.By 1994, voters in California had approved the Three Strikes and You’re Out law, which, inspired by the extensive criminal record of Polly’s killer, established life sentences for all felonies if the defendant had two prior convictions for serious or violent offenses.Versions of the law, which also doubled the sentence length for second strikes, were adopted in 23 other states. In September 1994, Congress passed the notorious federal crime bill, sponsored by then senator Joe Biden, which included a three strikes sentencing provision.In California, Three Strikes contributed to an explosion in the state’s prison population. More than 7,500 people were sentenced to life in prison within the first decade after it passed, nearly half of them for non-serious and non-violent offenses.‘America could be truly free’: John Legend on his fight to overhaul the criminal justice systemRead moreAnnie remembers adults trying to comfort her by talking about locking people up, including an officer who held her hand to the wall of the building where the man who killed Polly was incarcerated: “He said, ‘Look how thick these walls are. Don’t you feel safe?’”Marc Klaas, Polly’s father (but not Jess and Annie’s), had advocated for three strikes laws. But as the sisters grew older, they became increasingly uncomfortable with the California legislation and their connection to it.“Since I was 13, I knew it was wrong, and it was stressful to see newspapers on the table for many years, and I kind of stopped looking,” recalled Jess, now 41, on a recent morning in Annie’s backyard. With the sensationalized media and celebrity support, she added, “It didn’t feel right getting attention for Polly’s death and being known and validated for that, and I was repulsed by my own internal identity with it.”In 2019, Jess watched 13th, Ava DuVernay’s documentary on the history of racial inequality in the US, which featured Polly’s story: “When I saw the sequence from slavery to our current mass incarceration crisis, with Polly’s face right there as one of the major reasons incarceration took off in the 90s, I was stunned.”“A lot of people see this history as something that is separate from themselves, but in our case we have a really deep connection to this crisis,” Annie, now 35, added. “It’s such an injustice that the sum of Polly’s life was turned into this harm for others. The story that was told about Polly was used to pass these incredibly terrible laws, and it always felt like a distortion of the truth.”Jess cold called the ACLU of California in 2019, telling a receptionist she and Annie wanted to talk about the law passed in their family’s name and see if there was anything they could do to help repeal it.The sisters felt some initial apprehension about speaking publicly. They had long been intensely private in part out of a desire not to feed the true crime genre obsession with Polly. They were also aware of their privilege as white survivors whose story had received intense attention and were wary of taking up space while the vast majority of victims of violence are people of color whose cases never make headlines.They also weren’t sure their voices would matter, a doubt Annie partly attributes to the way the criminal legal system operates: “There is this kind of paternalistic dynamic in the justice system, which co-opts victims’ stories and claims to represent them without actually listening to them or asking them what they want. It’s, ‘We’re going to handle this for you and solve this problem. And now we fixed it’. It leaves victims feeling disempowered. And for a while, we felt powerless.”The ACLU connected the sisters to policy experts at Stanford university, and they began to learn more about Three Strikes: that it was originally proposed as the “street sweeper” law, but was deemed too extreme until Polly’s death; that it had been disproportionately applied to defendants with disabilities and mental illness; that some people have received two strikes for the same incident; that defendants got life sentences for stealing pizza and baby shoes; and that research had repeatedly suggested there was no evidence that Three Strikes reduced crime or deterred violence. Today, 45% of people serving life sentences with three strikes in California are Black, while Black residents make up only 6.5% of the broader population.In 2020, after the uprisings sparked by George Floyd’s murder, the sisters started meeting with other crime survivors who were disenchanted with America’s criminal justice system.One of them was Tinisch Hollins, who lost two of her brothers to violence and serves as executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, a survivors’ advocacy group. Hollins grew up in San Francisco and remembered when her mother made her watch news reports about Polly so she would be aware of the potential for abductions.“The terror that my mother had when she called me to watch the news of Polly Klaas was the same kind of terror that friends and family had when they talked about loved ones who had been arrested and were potentially going away to prison forever. There was this looming possibility that you could become a victim of the system in the same way you could become a victim of crime.”The sisters came to view Three Strikes as a symptom of systemic problems and started publishing op-eds advocating for an alternative approach to justice.They also launched A New Legacy, a podcast named after their hopes to chart a different legacy for Polly; they interview people fighting to undo mass incarceration, including people previously imprisoned under Three Strikes.“There’s an underlying assumption that the thing that victims want is the harshest sentencing for the people who caused harm. And that’s really the only option,” Jess said. “It’s this revengeful ‘eye for an eye’ culture. I’ve come to realize we don’t really have a ‘department of corrections and rehabilitation’. It’s a ‘department of punishment and revenge’.”Jess and Annie’s advocacy is coming at a pivotal moment. While crime levels remain below the historic highs of the early 1990s, the pandemic has seen devastating spikes in gun violence across the US, and polls have shown that Americans report feeling less safe.Why America overlooks those most hurt by gun violence: ‘Black people are seen as expendable’Read moreSome police officials, pundits and media crime reporting have placed the blame on reform efforts, including “progressive prosecutors” who have sought to reduce incarceration, the “defund the police” movement and efforts to dismantle cash bail so people aren’t jailed because they can’t pay a fee.There’s no evidence any of these reforms have caused crime or violence to increase – and there is research suggesting the contrary – but in the lead up to the midterms, Republicans and some Democrats have argued for an increased police presence, expanded punishments and a rollback of reforms.“Hearing the kind of fear-based rhetoric that is taking over headlines and that politicians are spouting is so familiar with what we grew up with,” Annie said. “It would be so easy to fall back on all these failed solutions just because there were rising crime rates during a pandemic when people didn’t have safe places to go, school programs were shut down, and people lost their jobs and homes. These pro-incarceration agendas tend to exploit people’s fears and make people imagine really terrible things. But arguably the worst thing that could ever happen to a family happened to us. And if we can imagine a better future then I think that’s something everyone can imagine.”They’re not alone among survivors. The children of a murdered pastor in Tennessee recently opposed prosecutors’ decision to charge the 15-year-old suspects as adults, saying it’s not what her mother, an activist, would have wanted; the woman who helped create the sex offender registry after her son was abducted has since argued it has gone too far and is ineffective; and some murder victims’ relatives have argued against the death penalty and in favor of the defendants’ release after years behind bars.Jess and Annie have been talking to survivors about what they actually need and want; their family had access to financial support, but they’ve met many survivors of color who were denied victim compensation from the state, including victims of police killings, who aren’t considered eligible. Many survivors fall into financial crises amid grief and the aftermath of violence and need time off or relocation help.Survivors also want prevention. The sisters said they would like to see the US reallocate a significant portion of the estimated $180bn that the country spends on police and prisons each year toward community resources, including violence intervention, mental health care, restorative justice and services for survivors, such as faith-based programs or trauma therapy: “Unaddressed trauma is one of the major root causes of crime and violence in this society, and it absolutely supports public safety to provide these services to survivors,” Annie said.Annie said she has also heard stories of survivors finding peace in forgiving the people who hurt them. But she is not one of them: “It’s easier for me to feel hatred than compassion for the person who killed Polly. At the same time, I know that before there was a man who did unfathomable harm to our family, there was a boy who was hurt and abused and neglected and abandoned by the social structures that were supposed to help him. And I would rather have a system that would help and protect that child from becoming someone capable of murdering a little girl than one that only seeks to punish him after taking our sister’s life.”Speaking out has provided some catharsis for the sisters after years of struggling to process their trauma.“I was in hiding for so long,” Jess said. “And it has been incredibly healing to come into this work and share our story and advocate for something that matters rather than hiding from shame of the aftermath of Polly’s kidnapping. For us there’s a full-circle healing coming out. It’s wonderful to be in service.”They also hope people think more critically about the impact of true crime and media sensationalism: “There is healing in reclaiming agency over our story, because for the longest time it felt like it wasn’t ours,” Annie said.But as Polly’s name continues to be invoked, in podcasts, videos or by politicians and advocates, there’s one part of their story the sisters are keeping to themselves: their memories of Polly. It’s all they have left of her.TopicsCaliforniaUS crimeUS politicsUS prisonsfeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

    Republicans’ lawless leaders at odds with midterm law and order message

    Republicans’ lawless leaders at odds with midterm law and order messageRepublicans running in next month’s elections cast their party as tough on crime, despite top party names’ legal scrapes “John Fetterman wants to release convicted murderers from prison,” warns the narrator, as a black-and-white photo of Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor is shown beside pictures of convicted killers. A caption adds darkly: “Socialist John Fetterman loves free stuff … but we can’t let him free murderers.”The campaign ad from Mehmet Oz, candidate for the US Senate in Pennsylvania, is vintage Republican strategy: casting a Democratic opponent as soft on crime. The party is zeroing in on fears over public safety ahead of November’s midterm elections in an effort to change the conversation from abortion, climate or democracy.But Republicans’ own claim to be the party of law and order is this time undermined, critics say, by the behavior of its party leaders. Former president Donald Trump, who is under myriad criminal, civil and congressional investigations, is not alone. Many senior Republicans have rallied to his defence or displayed their own contempt for the rule of law.“The Republican party is quickly becoming a party of anarchy and lawlessness,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. “This is supposed to be the party of conservative principles, of tradition, of respect for customs and rules that make society governable.“The idea that the law does not apply to Republicans is something that has now become part of the mainstream of the Republican party. We see it in terms of the approach to elections. We see it in terms of the treatment of immigrants. Some of the actions with regard to abortion may approach that level. The Republican party appears to consider the law and the constitution to be optional and to have lost legitimacy.”Over seven years Trump has refashioned the party in ways obvious and subtle. That has included a willingness to defend conduct that, from any other politician, would have been seen as beyond the pale.US intelligence resumes national security review of Mar-a-Lago documents – as it happenedRead moreAfter FBI agents searched his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida in August and seized classified documents, including some marked top secret, Trump could be indicted for violating the Espionage Act, obstructing a federal investigation or mishandling sensitive government records. The former president also faces a state grand jury investigation in Georgia over efforts to subvert that state’s election result in 2020.Last month, Trump and his oldest three children were accused by New York’s top prosecutor of lying to tax collectors, lenders and insurers in a “staggering” fraud scheme that routinely misstated the value of his properties. Despite it all, Trump remains the frontrunner for the party’s presidential nomination in 2024.His chief rival, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, may have violated federal law recently by using more than $600,000 in taxpayer money to lure about 50 Venezuelan asylum seekers on to flights to the small, upmarket island of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, and transporting them across state lines with a false reason.Authorities in Massachusetts have requested that the justice department pursue a human trafficking investigation. A sheriff in Texas, where the flights originated, has also opened an investigation into whether DeSantis acted criminally under a Texas penal code that defines the crime of unlawful restraint.The rot goes deep in the party.Republicans won’t commit to honoring vote results this fall. That’s troubling | Robert ReichRead moreNumerous members of the House of Representatives and Senate, as well as midterm candidates seeking to join them, have refused to condemn or have actively supported Trump’s “big lie” that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, siding with the violent mob on January 6 rather than the US Capitol police officers who resisted them.Steve Bannon, a former White House chief strategist, faces up to two years in prison after being convicted on contempt charges for defying a congressional subpoena from the House of Representatives committee investigating the insurrection. Rudy Giuliani, an ex-lawyer to Trump, had his law licence suspended after a court in New York ruled that he made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” while seeking to overturn the results of the election.In addition, Republicans have long been criticised for prioritising laws that protect gun owners over those that protect the victims of gun violence. And since the supreme court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, Republican-led states are accused of legal abuses: the justice department is suing Idaho over a near-total abortion ban.Critics believe that such examples make a mockery of Republican efforts to saddle Democrats with rising homicide rates in Atlanta, New Orleans, Philadelphia and other cities.Tara Setmayer, a senior adviser to the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group, said: “The rank hypocrisy of the Republican party trying to use these issues under the auspices of law and order when they continue to support a professional scofflaw in Donald Trump is laughable.“Republicans have turned a blind eye to Trump’s behavior before, during and after his presidency, which is giving a permission structure to other Republican presidential hopefuls like Ron DeSantis to act in potentially extrajudicial ways to accomplish their agenda of fearmongering and ‘owning the libs’.”Trivialising the rule of law extends to party cheerleaders. Last month, Tucker Carlson, a host on the conservative Fox News network, spoke at the funeral of Ralph “Sonny” Barger, the longtime president of the Hells Angels motorcycle club – deemed by the justice department to be linked to organised crime.Self-awareness in short supply as Trump calls for law and order in DCRead moreBrett Favre, an American football star who endorsed Trump for president in 2020, is embroiled in controversy after Mississippi spent millions of dollars in welfare money on his pet project, a university volleyball arena. The state’s then-governor, Republican Phil Bryant, texted Favre in 2019 that federal money for children and low-income adults is “tightly controlled” and “improper use could result in violation of Federal Law”.Yet Republicans have always been quick to accuse Democrats of flouting the law. In 2015 they argued that Barack Obama’s administration acted illegally when it hid a prisoner swap that freed the army sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban. Ilya Shapiro, a former vice-president of the Cato Institute thinktank in Washington, wrote that “the Obama administration has been the most lawless in US history”.But Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, believes that such comparisons are disingenuous. “These are the same Republicans who ran around with their hair on fire, concerned with what President Obama was doing through executive orders on guns and on immigration. That was nowhere near as legally dubious as what Republicans are doing today.”It was 1968 when presidential candidate Richard Nixon claimed the mantle of “law and order” for the Republican party, promising to fix a nation in disarray: “As we look at America, we see cities enveloped in smoke and flame. We hear sirens in the night.” Six years later, Nixon was forced to resign after breaking the law in his efforts to cover up the Watergate break-in.But Republicans believed they had found a winning message. In 1988, a political action committee supporting George HW Bush’s election campaign funded an ad blaming Democratic rival Michael Dukakis for the case of Willie Horton, an African American convict who committed rape during a furlough from prison. Bush’s campaign manager, Lee Atwater, boasted that he would make Horton “Dukakis’s running mate”.Now, the familiar drumbeat is being heard again in midterm races from Oregon to Pennsylvania, from New Mexico to Washington state. House Republicans just launched a “Commitment to America” manifesto that blamed “defund the police” efforts for law enforcement officers’ tough working conditions, “to say nothing of the liberal prosecutors and district attorneys who fail to do their job and keep criminals off the streets”.Joe Biden and other Democrats have worked hard to disown the “defund the police” slogan, with many Democratic-led cities pouring money into police departments. But the issue remains a vulnerability: voters say they agree more with Republicans on crime and policing by a margin of 10 percentage points, a recent New York Times/ Siena College poll found.Donna Brazile, a former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, said: “The Republicans are basically using the same playbook that Richard Nixon used. Richard Nixon ran as the candidate of law and order and we all know what happened next: Watergate. This is the same playbook. The Republicans constantly go back to their old playbooks in order to find a new way to reach the electorate. I think voters are smarter.”TopicsRepublicansUS politicsUS midterm elections 2022Donald TrumpRon DeSantisUS crimefeaturesReuse this content More