This guy seems to want Trump Bibles, not inhalers, for the children of Oklahoma

Two stories this week that are bad on their own become unbearable when viewed together.

Both involve Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters. Walters is a far-right figure, even in Oklahoma, and his actions this week show how that is – quite literally – at the expense of children.

The story that has received a lot of attention in recent days is a request for proposal (RFP) which was published Monday, September 30, for the purpose of awarding a contract for “the purchase of 55,000 King James Version Bibles that include the American Pledge of Allegiance, the United States Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the United States Bill of Rights documents.”

Yes, it’s capital “B” Bad on its face. But that’s not all. First of all, that’s not the only thing in the RFP required:

As others have noted, this unusual combination of documents is not common in one book. However, it is found in at least two Bibles – one supported by Donald Trump and the other supported by Donald Trump Jr. The Oklahoman reported.

In short, this could be a combination of religious indoctrination in public schools and good old-fashioned bribery.

The RFP closes on October 14 – a two-week lead time.

That would be enough, but then I saw it this letter from Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. Drummond is a Republican — a fairly conservative Republican in many ways — but one who is willing to occasionally break ranks with his fellow Republicans. On October 2, Drummond responded to a request from Walters about purchasing inhalers for Oklahoma’s children.

In the letter, Drummond all but accuses Walters of dragging his feet to make inhalers available to children in Oklahoma schools. The man rushing Bible purchases for schools across Oklahoma has taken more than a year — with still no resolution — to get emergency inhalers into schools after funding became available. Efforts in the state have expanded in recent years one child in the state died at school when he had an asthma attack and didn’t have access to an inhaler.

As noted in the letter, $250,000 in funding for the emergency inhalers became available on July 1, 2023. However, Walters’ department did not issue a request for information (“RFI”) to investigate potential suppliers of the inhalers until February 9, 2024. – more than seven months after the funds were appropriated and made available.” That, Drummond noted, was not an RFP that could result in the award of a contract. Additionally, Drummond added that Walters has essentially given up, writing, “It appears you have chosen to require school districts to purchase inhalers directly and receive a refund rather than purchasing inhalers directly.”

Drummond went on to detail the Legislature’s efforts to support inhalers in schools, noting that “as of July 1, 2023, the Department was responsible for purchasing emergency inhalers for all schools.” After detailing how the department could obtain the inhalers directly, Drummond’s conclusion — again, from one Republican official to another — makes shocking reading:

“Frankly, the failure to implement regulatory guidelines and erect roadblocks to potentially life-saving medications at the expense of children reflects, at the very least, a lack of understanding of basic purchasing procedures, and perhaps a disingenuous unwillingness to act,” Drummond concluded.

But the RFP for Bible purchases closes on October 14.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s letter made public Wednesday — technically the “Government’s Motion for Immunity Determinations” — is a damning document. It is devastating to Donald Trump and his co-conspirators – but it also, in a light tone, repeatedly challenges the decisions made by Chief Justice John Roberts in his July ruling for the US Supreme Court. Trump vs. United States.

I write “light touch” because Smith is smart and knows that, should the matter continue after the election (that is, if Vice President Kamala Harris wins), it will eventually go back to Roberts and the others.

The the 165-page motion was placed on the docket shortly after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued his ruling an order granting Smith’s request to submit a version of the document with redactions. That led to extensive talk about who’s who among the redacted characters, some of which were extremely obvious, some that took some work to figure out, and some that weren’t entirely clear. But if you want to figure all that out, you’ve probably already done it or read those stories.

Let’s take a step back: what the motion contains is an extensive 80-page presentation of evidence against Trump; a summary of the July Supreme Court immunity ruling; and a 76-page presentation on how Smith’s team thinks Chutkan (Roberts) should apply that ruling to the evidence.

It is, in essence, Smith’s attempt to downplay Roberts’ bluff.

He basically says, “I see you’re deciding on immunity, and whatever I think about it, which isn’t much, I agree.”

From the outset, Smith argued:

The defendant claims he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it involved official conduct. Not so. Although the defendant was the sitting president during the accused conspiracies, his scheme was essentially a private one.

Although technically comments about Trump, the paragraph could just as easily have been rewritten about Roberts and Trump:

Roberts claims that Trump is presumptively immune from prosecution over his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it involved official conduct. Not so. Although Trump was the sitting president during the accused conspiracies, his plan was essentially a private one.

As for the parts of the superseding indictment against Trump that involve official acts – or even arguably official acts – Smith and his team describe how and why Chutkan (read: Roberts) should find that they have overcome the presumptive immunity that the Supreme Court had. found applies.

While holding back a bit, Smith made it clear that the Supreme Court didn’t have to leave that much up in the air. Just as Roberts was willing to declare outright that Trump’s involvement with Justice Department leaders was shielded from criminal investigation in the first place—that Trump had absolute immunity from those discussions—Smith shows in the third part of his motion how easy it could have been before the Supreme Court. The court should do the same as for actions that were clearly unofficial.

But again, since the Supreme Court didn’t do this, Smith did in his petition.

Trump’s response afterward a request for an extension, is now not due until November 7 – two days after Election Day.

In other words, as with so many other cases, and as has been clear in this case since the July 1 immunity ruling, this another coincidental casewhose future depends on the outcome of the elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court spoke on Friday morning announced that it has added 13 new arguments to its calendar for the term starting Monday, and granted certiorari in 15 new cases.

Among the cases is an effort by U.S. gun manufacturers to stop Mexico’s lawsuit against them for what the gun manufacturers characterize as “harm inflicted by Mexican drug cartels.” The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit allowed Some of Mexico’s claims to proceed — finding they may be exempt from the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which bans most lawsuits against gun makers — and the gun makers are asking the Supreme Court to protect them by that ruling to turn back.

The 13 arguments will be added the 28 cases which were granted before the court’s summer recess, and Law Dork will have more on the agenda as it progresses.

Many of them, like me writtenalso play a role in the issue of contingent cases, as the federal government’s position on cases could change in January depending on the election outcome.

Part