On Imprisoning Presidential Candidates: From Eugene Debs to Donald Trump / by Fran Shor

A mugshot of union leader and socialist politician Eugene V. Debs with his prisoner number circa 1920 |  Photo: National Archives and Records Administration

It is hard to imagine Trump serving even any time in prison for the alleged felonies he has committed, let alone anywhere near the 2.5 years served by Debs, the American socialist leader imprisoned for speaking out against war and in favor of civil liberties like free speech. How’s that for justice?

Reposted from Common Dreams


Now that a New York jury convicted Donald Trump of 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal hush money paid to a porn star and to evade campaign financial regulations, speculation has begun about his sentencing. Even though his outrageous behavior towards and slander of the district attorney, the judge, the witnesses, and the jury should warrant a punitive sentence, up to and including prison, it is highly unlikely that he will spend any time in jail.

However, for those who argue this is a first-time offense for a white-collar crime, this neglects the whole pattern of lying and fraud for which he and his business associates have already been convicted in a civil case. Moreover, given the credible allegations of rape, and the guilty judgment in the E. Jean Carroll defamation and sexual abuse case, Trump clearly is a serial offender against a whole host of individuals and institutions.

As much as Trump rails against a “rigged” justice system, he has been treated with the kind of latitude and privilege befitting a wealthy white member of the ruling elite.

It is, of course, Trump’s political crimes that constitute other egregious felonies for which he has already been indicted. Unfortunately, through delay and the intervention of a politically compromised U.S. Supreme Court, the Orange Blob has avoided wearing the Orange Suit of a jailed prisoner. In addition, because of the feckless Merrick Garland, Trump’s incitement to insurrection and efforts to overturn the 2020 Presidential election were not immediately prosecuted. Thus, it may be that Trump avoids going to prison for any of these political crimes.

As much as Trump rails against a “rigged” justice system, he has been treated with the kind of latitude and privilege befitting a wealthy white member of the ruling elite. However, over a century ago, another presidential candidate was not as fortunate when it came to what passed for justice during World War One. While there may be some oblique reference in the mainstream media to the 1920 presidential candidate of the Socialist Party sitting in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, it is important to recount the context in which Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to a ten-year prison term.

Debs, like the majority of the members of the Socialist Party of the United States, opposed the U.S. participation in WWI and denounced conscription as a vehicle for providing “cannon fodder” for the slaughter-fest. The presumption of a constitutional right to free speech, however, was contravened by the passage in 1917 of Espionage Act and in 1918 of the Sedition Act. Under these acts, the Wilson Department of Justice arrested hundreds of prominent opponents of the war and conscription. Indeed, when Debs came to Canton, Ohio in June 1918 to address the Ohio Socialist Party convention, three of its leaders were already serving sentences and being tortured in jail for antiwar speeches.

Addressing the thousands gathered to hear his talk on June 16, 1918, Debs defended the right to free speech during wartime even as he attempted to lay out a carefully constructed criticism of conscription. Nonetheless, there was enough in the address for a Cleveland federal grand jury on June 29, 1918 to indict Debs for alleged violations of both the Espionage and Sedition Acts. During the September 1918 trial, he reminded a jury composed of well-to-do residents of rural and small Ohio towns that “the right of free speech” should be upheld “in war as well as in peace.” Debs did not try to obscure the fact that he opposed the war precisely because it was the “ruling classes that make war upon one another, and not the people.”

Unmoved by Debs’s arguments, the jury found him guilty on all the charges and the judge then sentenced him to ten years in prison. Released on $10,000 bail (nearly a quarter of a million in today’s dollars), he began an appeal process that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Writing for the unanimous decision of the Court on March 10, 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. re-affirmed that Debs’s Canton speech was “seditious.” A little more than one month later, Debs was sent to a maximum-security prison before being transferred to the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary on June 14, 1919. It was in that facility that Debs received over 900,000 votes in the 1920 presidential election.

Upon being sent to prison, there were requests from progressive and liberal voices, including from AFL union members, for President Wilson to pardon Debs. All those appeals were rebuffed. When Warren Harding took over the presidency in 1921, there was even a louder chorus urging a general amnesty for all those languishing in prison as a consequence of their vocal opposition to WWI. Although rejecting a general amnesty, Harding pardoned Debs in December 1921, commuting the reminder of his ten-year sentence.

It is hard to imagine Trump serving even any time in prison for the alleged felonies he has committed, let alone anywhere near the two and a half years served by Debs. Moreover, if Trump manages by hook or crook (and the arcane electoral college is definitely an antidemocratic hook) to recapture the White House, one can imagine self pardons for federal crimes and the overturning of state crimes. Finally, given Trump’s avowed intentions to punish his political opponents, round up and deport migrants, and to shape his own “Justice” Department, any prospect of a Trump presidency must be viewed with alarm.


Fran Shor is a Michigan-based retired teacher, writer, and activist.

Senate Plans Hearing on ‘Healthcare Nightmare’ From GOP Abortion Bans / by Jessica Corbett

U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) arrive for a hearing in Washington, D.C. on March 22, 2023 | Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images

Reposted from Common Dreams


It’s been nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade, triggering a fresh wave of Republican restrictions on abortion at the state level—the topic of a Senate hearing that progressive leaders are planning for next week.

Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the panel’s former leader, announced Wednesday that the hearing—titled, “The Assault on Women’s Freedoms: How Abortion Bans Have Created a Healthcare Nightmare Across America”—will be held on June 4 at 10:00 am ET.

While the witness list has not been released yet, Sanders and Murray previewed the event in a joint statement, saying that “in the two years since Roe was overturned, Republican abortion bans have created a full-blown healthcare crisis—forcing providers to close their doors and shut down their practices, putting women’s lives in danger, decimating access to maternal healthcare, and forcing women to remain pregnant, no matter their circumstances.”

The June 2022 majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and “Republican abortion bans have forced women to leave their states under duress or wait until they are near death to receive care,” the pair noted. “Providers have been forced to make gut-wrenching decisions about whether to risk jail time to help a woman access the healthcare she needs.”

As of May 1, just nine states and Washington, D.C. don’t ban abortion or impose gestational limits, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That means 41 states have restrictions: 14 have total bans; seven ban abortion at or before 18 weeks; and 20 ban it after 18 weeks. Some states have exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the pregnant person—though providers and patients have stressed that such policies often don’t actually help those seeking care.

“The harm of Dobbs has extended far beyond states with extreme abortion bans” Sanders and Murray pointed out. “In places where abortion remains legal, women are waiting longer for care and providers are struggling to keep up with a dramatically increased patient load.”

As Common Dreamsreported last week, after Florida’s six-week ban went into effect at the beginning of this month, wait times increased at 30% of the abortion clinics in the closest states and the driving distance for the average Floridian increased by nearly 30 times to 590 miles.

The influx of “healthcare refugees” is impacting places like Illinois, where Planned Parenthood saw its out-of-state patients jump from about 6% to nearly a third each month in the wake of Dobbs. Jennifer Welch, the provider’s president and CEO, said in December 2022 that “the number of patients from other states forced to travel to our health centers is at a historic high.”

As the GOP has worked to further restrict reproductive freedom since Dobbs, protecting and expanding such rights has become a top priority for voters across the country. For the 2024 cycle, campaigners in several states are focused on ballot measures affirming the right to abortion and other care, while Democratic President Joe Biden and the presumed Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, have campaigned on their respective records.

Though some of Biden’s public statements have frustrated rights advocates, the president supports access to abortion care. Trump, meanwhile, has both bragged about appointing three of the six justices who reversed Roe but also recognized the risks of openly backing the most extreme bans—as his allies plot major attacks on reproductive rights if he returns to office.

“The threats to a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body and her future keep coming—right now Republicans are working to rip away access to safe medication abortion, block women from receiving emergency abortion care that could save their lives, ban abortion nationwide, and restrict access to contraception,” Sanders and Murray warned.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to soon rule on one case that could restrict access to mifepristone, a medication commonly used for abortions, and another case about whether abortion care is included in the “necessary stabilizing treatment” that emergency healthcare departments are required to provide under federal law, as the Biden administration argues.

“And Republican attacks on basic healthcare are only escalating,” Sanders and Murray said. “The anti-abortion movement has shown its cruelty and utter disregard for women’s lives again and again, and it is essential that we use every opportunity to continue to make clear exactly how extreme right-wing abortion bans and restrictions on reproductive healthcare have endangered women, hurt families, and rolled back rights.”

“We must continue to shine a light on the living nightmare extreme right-wing abortion bans and other healthcare restrictions have been for women across the country,” they concluded, “and do everything we can to restore every woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions.”


Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

‘Chilling’: Supreme Court Says Idaho Can Jail Doctors for Providing Abortions / by Jake Johnson

Abortion rights advocates protest the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on July 2, 2022 in Driggs, Idaho | Photo: Natalie Behring/Getty Images

Reposted from Common Dreams


“Yet again, women’s lives are at the mercy of this extreme Court stacked by Donald Trump.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday opted to reinstate Idaho’s near-total abortion ban, a draconian law that carries up to five years in prison for doctors who perform the procedure outside of extremely narrow circumstances.

The high court, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the summer of 2022, agreed to hear a Justice Department challenge to Idaho’s abortion ban in April. In the meantime, it will be a crime in Idaho to perform or attempt to perform an abortion unless the procedure is deemed “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” or if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest.

“SCOTUS just allowed Idaho to throw health care providers in jail for providing emergency abortion care while they consider this case,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) wrote in response to the Supreme Court’s order. “This is a chilling reminder that the anti-abortion movement doesn’t care if women live or die—as long as they’re forced to give birth.”

The Justice Department argued in its lawsuit that Idaho’s abortion ban conflicts with a federal law requiring Medicare-funded hospitals to provide certain stabilizing treatments, including abortion care.

“Beyond care necessary to prevent death, the law provides no defense whatsoever when the health of the pregnant patient is at stake,” the department’s legal challenge reads. “And, even in dire situations that might qualify for the Idaho law’s limited ‘necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman’ affirmative defense, some providers could withhold care based on a well-founded fear of criminal prosecution.”

The department warned that if Idaho’s law is permitted to stay in effect, it will prevent healthcare professionals from performing abortions “even when a doctor determines that abortion is the medically necessary treatment to prevent severe risk to the patient’s health and even in cases where denial of care will likely result in death for the pregnant patient.”

The Supreme Court’s unsigned order came days after the conservative-dominated 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas can ban abortions even in emergency situations. In Texas and across the U.S., people have faced dangerous health complications after being denied abortion care due to Republican-authored laws in their states.

Many have been forced to travel out of state to obtain care. One Idaho woman “sought an abortion in [Oregon] after doctors told her she would likely miscarry and, if she continued the pregnancy, develop a life-threatening condition,” The Idaho Statesmanreported last month.

“Her trip to Oregon put so much financial strain on the family, they were unable to pay their mortgage for a month,” the newspaper added.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday that the Supreme Court’s order allowing Idaho’s ban to take effect is “dangerous and exceptionally cruel.”

“Now, doctors in the state cannot perform abortions even in medical emergencies,” Warren added. “Yet again, women’s lives are at the mercy of this extreme Court stacked by Donald Trump.”


Jake Johnson is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

‘He Is Not Qualified’: Maine Bars Trump From Primary Ballot / by Jessica Corbett

Shenna Bellows, then a Democratic Maine state senator, spoke at a hearing in Augusta on May 2, 2017 | Photo: Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Portland Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

Reposted from Common Dreams


“The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multimonth effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match.”

Maine Democratic Secretary of State Shenna Bellows on Thursday barred former U.S. President Trump from the Republican 2024 primary ballot, determining that “he is not qualified to hold the office of the president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment” to the country’s Constitution.

Despite several ongoing criminal cases, Trump is currently the Republican front-runner for next year’s presidential contest, in which Democratic President Joe Biden, who beat him in 2020, is seeking reelection.

The decision in Maine comes just weeks away from the Iowa caucuses and amid multiple legal battles aiming to boot Trump from ballots for inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection—including in Colorado, where the state Supreme Court disqualified him last week, a decision that could soon be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, to which he appointed three justices.

“Mr. Trump was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it.”

Bellows’ move—which will ultimately be decided in the courts—came in response to three challenges filed to Trump’s nomination, two based on the 14th Amendment and one citing the 22nd Amendment. The former bars anyone who has taken an oath to the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection from holding office again, while the latter sets a two-term limit for presidents.

The Maine official said Thursday that “there appears to be no dispute between any of the parties that President Biden prevailed over Mr. Trump. Therefore, given Mr. Trump has only won a single election for president, he is not barred from being elected to the same office again under the 22nd Amendment.”

However, regarding the 14th Amendment arguments, she found that “the record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on January 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them to the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 election and the peaceful transfer of power.”

“I likewise conclude that Mr. Trump was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it,” she wrote in the 34-page decision.

Bellows stressed that “Mr. Trump’s occasional requests that rioters be peaceful and support law enforcement do not immunize his actions. A brief call to obey the law does not erase conduct over the course of months, culminating in his speech on the Ellipse. The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multimonth effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match.”

“I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection,” she wrote.

Citing a relevant state law, Bellows said that “the oath I swore to uphold the Constitution comes first above all, and my duty under Maine’s election laws, when presented with a Section 336 challenge, is to ensure that candidates who appear on the primary ballot are qualified for the office they seek.”

“The events of January 6, 2021 were unprecedented and tragic,” she added. “They were an attack not only upon the Capitol and government officials, but also an attack on the rule of law. The evidence here demonstrates that they occurred at the behest of, and with the knowledge and support of, the outgoing president. The U.S. Constitution does not tolerate an assault on the foundations of our government, and Section 336 requires me to act in response.”

The secretary suspended the effect of her decision until the Maine Superior Court rules on any appeal, or the appeal period expires.

In a lengthy statement noting similar fights in other states, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said that “we will quickly file a legal objection in state court to prevent this atrocious decision in Maine from taking effect.”

He also took aim at Bellows, saying that “the Maine secretary of state is a former ACLU attorney, a virulent leftist, and a hyperpartisan Biden-supporting Democrat who has decided to interfere in the presidential election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden.”

Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich, now a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said on social media that the U.S. Supreme Court “will surely have the final word.”

As Common Dreams reported earlier Thursday, the government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and law firms representing six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters who brought the 14th Amendment challenge in the state are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on their case by February 11, given the timeline for mailing ballots.

Law Dork‘s Chris Geidner said Thursday that a Supreme Court review “is made almost certain given a new ruling from Maine’s secretary of state.”


Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.