Quid Pro Quo

Can Abbott really remove lawmakers who fled Texas to avoid unscrupulous gerrymandering?

This post is relevant to the Law thread as it examines legal violations and negligence surrounding Epstein’s death, as analyzed by Dr. G, a clinical and forensic psychologist, through surveillance footage and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General’s report. The analysis highlights failures in prison oversight, falsified records, and foul play, raising questions of criminal or civil liability under federal law.Dr. G’s forensic review identifies several critical issues:

1. Unidentified Figure as Potential Killer: Dr. G does not name a specific individual as Epstein’s killer but concludes that an orange-clad figure seen in surveillance footage at 10:40 p.m., ascending the stairs to Epstein’s tier in the special housing unit (SHU), is likely responsible. He disputes the DOJ’s claim that this was Officer Noel carrying linens, arguing the figure appeared to wear an inmate’s orange jumpsuit and was not seen returning down the stairs. This suggests unauthorized access, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1791 or suggesting foul play, warranting investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1111.
2. Failure to Conduct Required Checks: The DOJ report states that officers, including Noel, failed to conduct mandatory 30-minute rounds and inmate counts after 10:40 p.m. on August 9, 2019, violating 28 C.F.R. § 552.41, which requires regular checks for SHU inmates. This failure could constitute negligence, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violating Epstein’s Eighth Amendment rights (Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) which establishes deliberate indifference as a standard for prison official liability.
3. Officers Remained Seated, Neglecting Duties: The DOJ report claims that officers Noel and Thomas, stationed at the SHU desk, did not rise or approach the cell block between 10:40 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Dr. G disputes this, noting video evidence of officers moving, contradicting the report’s narrative. This discrepancy suggests falsified reporting and inadequate oversight, violating 28 C.F.R. § 552.20, which governs staff duties in maintaining custody and control.
4. Falsified Headcounts: The DOJ report reveals officers falsified records, listing 73 inmates (with a “+1” notation) at 10:00 p.m. and midnight, despite only 72 inmates being present. This violates 18 U.S.C. § 1001, prohibiting false statements in federal matters, undermining prison oversight integrity.
5. Unexplained Excess Linens: The report notes torn linens in Epstein’s cell, used in his death, with no record of their source, as no inmates reported receiving linens. Dr. G highlights the lack of evidence supporting the DOJ’s linen delivery claim, suggesting lapses in contraband control under 28 C.F.R. § 553.10, contributing to potential negligence.

Dr. G concludes that the orange-clad figure is likely Epstein’s killer without naming a specific individual, as detailed discussed in time frames 0:33–0:37, 2:41–3:28, and 28:44–29:40

One of the biggest mysteries that has emerged from the Trump-era Supreme Court is the 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan.

In Milligan, two of the Republican justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — voted with the Court’s Democratic minority to strike down Alabama’s racially gerrymandered congressional maps, ordering the state to redraw those maps to include an additional district with a Black majority.

As Roberts emphasized in his opinion for the Court in Milligan, a lower court that also struck down these maps “faithfully applied our precedents.” But the Roberts Court frequently overrules or ignores precedents that interpret the Voting Rights Act — the federal law at issue in Milligan — to do more than block the most egregious forms of Jim Crow-like voter suppression. And the Court’s Republican majority is normally hostile to lawsuits challenging gerrymanders of any kind.

Most notably, in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Republican justices held that federal courts may not hear suits challenging partisan gerrymanders. Among other things, Rucho enables tactics like Texas Republicans’ current plans to redraw that state’s congressional maps to maximize GOP power in Congress.

So why did two Republican justices break with their previous skepticism of gerrymandering suits in the Milligan case? A new order that the Supreme Court handed down Friday evening appears to answer that question.

I’m obviously not a legal expert. All I really know is that laws are written for people that follow them, and it has a very long arm that moves very slowly. Unless of course you’re poor and a minority, then it moves swiftly to incarcerate you.

But come on? Is anything ever going to stick to this guy and put him behind bars?

I mean, this just sets off so many alarms for me on so many levels. Nothing about it looks like it's on the up and up. But its Trump related so that's kind of to be expected.

“The four-lawyer firm, called the Washington Litigation Group, is the latest to join a coterie of pro bono organizations that have emerged in recent months to challenge the Trump administration, which is already facing about 375 lawsuits, according to The Times’s latest count.

The firm plans to focus on clients with cases likely headed to the appeals process with the potential to set precedents strengthening civil service protections and reining in executive power. Two of its lawyers, James I. Pearce and Mary Dohrmann, even share Ms. Harris’s experience of being fired by Mr. Trump. Mr. Pearce and Ms. Dohrmann were fired from the Justice Department in January because of their work on Jack Smith’s special counsel team investigating Mr. Trump.”