Friday, May 31, 2024
Chief Justice Roberts declines to meet with Democrats on court ethics
Chief Justice Roberts declines to meet with Democrats on court ethics
“Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse proposed a meeting after reports of politically charged flags at the homes of Justice Samuel Alito.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday turned down an invitation to meet with Senate Democrats to discuss what the lawmakers called an “ethics crisis” at the Supreme Court following reports of two politically charged flags displayed outside the homes of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
In a two-paragraph letter to Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Roberts said such a meeting would be “inadvisable” in part because of the importance of preserving judicial independence.
“The format proposed — a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court — simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable,” Roberts told Durbin and Whitehouse, who oversee the federal courts in their respective roles as chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a judicial oversight subcommittee.
The communication from the chief justice follows Alito’s rejection one day earlierof calls for his recusal from two major Jan. 6-related cases at the Supreme Court. Dozens of Democratic lawmakers and some legal experts had questioned whether Alito could avoid the appearance of bias after reports about the display of flags embraced by rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Democrats asked Roberts to ensure Alito would not participate in deciding those cases, which the court is scheduled to rule on in the coming weeks. One involves whether former president Donald Trump may be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election; another asks whether the Justice Department can use an obstruction charge to prosecute more than 300 Jan. 6 rioters.
Follow Election 2024
While Roberts holds the title of chief and presides over the high court and the federal judiciary, his power over his fellow justices is quite limited. He did not address the flag controversy in his letter Thursday, instead noting that individual justices decide for themselves whether to recuse and have followed that practice for 235 years. There is no process to appeal a justice’s determination.
Democrats in the House and Senate have backed legislation that would impose a stricter ethics policy on the Supreme Court, including an independent enforcement and oversight mechanism. Republicans oppose the measure, dismissing the effort as motivated by political opposition to the court’s conservative supermajority.
A spokesperson for Durbin rebutted Roberts’s assertion that it would be improper for the justice to meet with members of Congress.
“To the contrary, Chair Durbin’s only interest — as it has been since he first raised this issue with the Chief Justice 12 years ago — is restoring the credibility of the Court in the eyes of the American people,” spokeswoman Emily Hampsten said in a statement, adding that Durbin would continue to press for legislation establishing an enforceable code of conduct for the justices.
Alito said this week that both flags were raised by his wife, Martha-Ann Alito. In the weeks after the Jan. 6 attack, an upside-down American flag was flown outside the couple’s home in the Alexandria area of Fairfax County, Va. The flipped flag, historically used as a sign of distress by the U.S. military, had become a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” movement, which falsely claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
In an unusual letter to lawmakers Wednesday, Alito wrote that his wife’s reasons for raising the flag “are not relevant for present purposes.” He also noted her distress at the time “due, in large part, to a very nasty neighborhood dispute,” which he previously said involved an anti-Trump yard sign.
A second flag emblazoned with the words “Appeal to Heaven,” which has been embraced by Christian nationalists who want to find a greater place for religion in public life, was flown outside the couple’s vacation home in New Jersey last summer.
In Alito’s letter, the justice said he was “not aware of any connection between this historic flag and the ‘Stop the Steal movement,’ and neither was my wife.”
Martha-Ann Alito “did not fly it to associate herself with that or any other group,” the justice wrote, “and the use of an old, historic flag by a new group does not necessarily drain that flag of all other meanings.”
The federal recusal statute that applies to all judges and justices requires a justice to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
The court’s new code of conduct, adopted in November in response to ethics controversies, separately prohibits justices from engaging in political activity and directs them to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
The code calls for justices to recuse from cases in which “the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.”
While ethics experts have said the display of politically charged symbols outside a justice’s home is enough to create the appearance of bias, Alito had a different assessment of what the code requires.
“I am confident that a reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that the facts recounted above do not meet the applicable standard for recusal,” his letter said.“
Thursday, May 30, 2024
Will Trump go to jail? Can he be president? What’s next after guilty verdict?
Donald Trump was convicted Thursday on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York state hush money case
and
Updated May 30, 2024 at 6:16 p.m. EDT|Published May 30, 2024 at 5:20 p.m. EDT
“Will Trump go to jail? Can he be president? What’s next after guilty verdict?
Donald Trump was convicted Thursday on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his New York state hush money case
David Nakamura
Donald Trump comments after being found guilty on 34 felony counts at Manhattan Criminal Court on Thursday in New York. (Seth Wenig/AP)
Trump New York hush money case
Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. Follow live updates.
Key witnesses: Several key witnesses, including Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, have taken the stand. Here’s what Cohen said during his testimony. Read full transcripts from the trial.
Gag order: New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has twice ruled that Trump violated his gag order, which prohibits him from commenting on jurors and witnesses in the case, among others. Here are all of the times Trump has violated the gag order.
The case: The investigation involves a $130,000 payment made to Daniels, an adult-film actress, during the 2016 presidential campaign. It’s one of many ongoing investigations involving Trump. Here are some of the key people in the case.
The charges: Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime. He has pleaded not guilty. Here’s what to know about the charges — and any potential sentence.
What happens next?
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan scheduled Trump’s sentencing for July 11. Trump is required to report to the New York City Department of Probation for an interview about his background, his mental health and the circumstances of his case that will be used to help compile a presentencing report.
Will Trump go to jail?
The charges against Trump are nonviolent Class E felonies, the lowest level in New York, and they are punishable by 16 months to four years in state prison. Legal experts said it is unlikely that Trump, 77, would be incarcerated, given that he had not previously been convicted of a crime.
Other options for Merchan include sentencing Trump to probation, which would mean he would need approval from a parole officer to travel outside the state. Trump also could be fined or granted a conditional discharge pegged to the requirement that he stay out of further legal trouble, legal experts said.
Trump hush money trial
Follow live updates after Donald Trump was found guilty on all 34
Can Trump still become president after being convicted?
Trump remains eligible to campaign for the presidency and serve if elected. The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be at least 35 years old, a natural-born U.S. citizen and a resident in the country for at least 14 years. The 14th Amendment, passed by Congress after the Civil War, bars anyone who participated in an insurrection from running for the presidency, but Trump has not been charged with insurrection in the three other criminal prosecutions that remain active against him.
Can Trump appeal?
Trump’s legal team will have 30 days from the New York verdict to file notice of appeal and six months to file the full appeal. Any appeals process would probably extend beyond the Nov. 5 presidential election. Legal experts said it is plausible that an appeals court would agree to stay Trump’s sentence until after the appeal is adjudicated.”
Donald Trump found guilty of hush-money plot to influence 2016 election | Donald Trump trials | The Guardian
Donald Trump found guilty of hush-money plot to influence 2016 election
"Verdict in first criminal trial against a US president comes after jury deliberated for less than 12 hours
Donald Trump has been found guilty of using a criminal hush-money scheme to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.
The verdict came after a jury deliberated for less than twelve hours in the unprecedented first criminal trial against a US president. It marks a perilous political moment for Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican nomination, whose poll numbers have remained unchanged throughout the trial but could tank at any moment.
Trump was convicted by a jury of 12 New Yorkers of felony falsification of business records, which makes it a crime for a person to make or cause false entries in records with the intent to commit a second crime.
In Trump’s case, the Manhattan district attorney’s office alleged Trump falsely recorded the reimbursements he made to his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who paid the adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 for her silence about her affair with Trump, as “legal expenses”.
The prosecution alleged the falsifications were made to conceal Trump’s violation of New York state election law, which makes it a crime to promote the election of any person to office through unlawful means.
Prosecutors argued in part that those unlawful means were the $130,000 payment to Daniels, which was in effect an illegal campaign contribution, because it was done solely for the benefit of his 2016 campaign and exceeded the $2,700 individual contribution cap.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office called 20 witnesses who, over the course of four weeks, gave evidence of how Trump plotted with the tabloid mogul David Pecker and Cohen to bury accounts of affairs with Daniels and the Playboy model Karen McDougal.
The witnesses – some friendly to Trump, others openly hostile – said Trump’s worry over the Daniels story intensified after the October 2016 release of the infamous Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump was caught on a hot mic bragging about sexual assault.
The recording featured Trump boasting about being able to grab women “by the pussy” without their consent because he was famous. Trial witnesses testified the Trump campaign worried that his efforts to dismiss the tape as “locker room talk” would fail if more boorish behavior came to light.
When the Daniels story threatened to become widely known weeks before the 2016 election, Cohen moved into action and paid Daniels $130,000 to buy the exclusive rights to her story – in order to suppress its publication.
After the 2016 election, prosecutors argued, Cohen worked out an illicit repayment plan in which he would be paid $420,000, an inflated sum that “grossed up” for tax reasons the $130,000 and other items Cohen billed.
The trial saw prosecutors elicit testimony from Cohen, Daniels and a parade of Trump’s confidants and employees, as they sought to establish that Trump concealed the alleged payoff scheme in an effort to ensure he would not lose support from female voters.
Cohen proved to be perhaps the most legally consequential witness for the prosecution, as he recounted how he used a home equity loan to raise the $130,000 he then wired to Daniels’ lawyer through a shell company. Cohen did so in the belief that Trump would reimburse him, he testified.
In January 2017, Cohen said, he discussed with Trump and the former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg about being repaid for the $130,000, an overdue bonus and other expenses he incurred doing work that benefited the Trump 2016 campaign.
Cohen produced 11 invoices seeking payment pursuant to a legal “retainer” that did not exist, according to Cohen, which led to 11 checks being cut to Cohen and the Trump Organization recording 12 entries for “legal expense” on its general ledger – totaling 34 instances of alleged falsifications.
Cohen, who was the final witness for the prosecution, said that Trump was furious when he learned that Daniels was on the verge of going public – not least because Cohen had previously worked with Daniels’ lawyer Keith Davidson, in 2011, to remove the affair story from a gossip website.
“Just take care of it,” Cohen recalled Trump saying. “This was a disaster, a fucking disaster. Women will hate me.”
“Would you have made that payment to Stormy Daniels without getting a sign-off from Mr Trump?” prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Cohen.
“No, because everything required Mr Trump’s sign-off. And on top of that, I wanted the money back,” Cohen said.
Cohen said that he filed bogus invoices for legal services to cover up the reimbursements, and repeatedly said that Trump was the force behind the Daniels plot. He carried out the payoff “to ensure that the story would not come out, would not affect Mr Trump’s chances of becoming president of the United States”.
In a watershed moment, Cohen told jurors these repayments started not long after an 8 February 2017 meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, where they talked about money. Cohen hadn’t been repaid anything for the payoff.
“So, I was sitting with President Trump and he asked me if I was OK, he asked me if I needed money, and I said: ‘No, all good’,” Cohen told jurors. “He said, ‘All right, just make sure you deal with Allen.’”
“Allen” referenced Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer at the time, who was recently incarcerated for lying at Trump’s recent civil fraud trial. Weisselberg had previously pleaded guilty to tax crimes, for which he was also jailed.
Cohen submitted $35,000 invoices for each month, listing the bill as for legal services. He said it was actually for “the reimbursement, to me, of the hush-money fee along with [another expense] and the bonus”.
Hoffinger went through every invoice and pay document and asked Cohen whether it was for legal services – or false. Cohen repeatedly said that the descriptions of invoices and payments in emails and business documents were, in fact, false.
“What I was doing was at the direction of and benefit of Mr Trump,” Cohen said at one point, among the many times he directly implicated Trump. “Everything required Mr Trump’s sign-off.”
Daniels provided stunning testimony that undermined Trump’s denials that they had sex following a celebrity golf event in Lake Tahoe nearly two decades ago. After rejecting Trump’s invitation to dinner, Daniels decided to go at the advice of a colleague, who said: “It’ll make a great story.”
Daniels said that she went to Trump’s hotel room, and they decided to chat before grabbing something to eat. He asked over and over about her work as an adult film actor, repeatedly asking her questions such as: “What about testing? Do you worry about STDs?” Had she been tested?
“Yes, of course, and I volunteered it as well,” Daniels said. “He asked me, oh, well, have you ever had a bad test? I said: ‘Nope, I can show you my entire record.’”
Trump started to show photos to Daniels at one point, including one of Melania, about which she commented that his wife was “very beautiful” – but allegedly added she should not worry about Melania because “we don’t even sleep in the same room”.
They spoke about Trump’s show, The Apprentice, and Daniels remarked there would be no way she would make it on TV given her line of work.
“You remind me of my daughter, she is smart and blonde and beautiful and people underestimate her as well,” Daniels remembered Trump saying.
Daniels excused herself for the restroom, which was through a bedroom. When she came out, Trump was on the bed, in his underwear and a T-shirt.
“At first I was just startled, like a jump scare,” Daniels said. “I just thought: oh my God, what did I misread to get here? The intention is pretty clear if someone’s stripped down to their underwear and on the bed.”
Daniels tried to leave but he stood between her and the door, albeit “not in a threatening manner”, she said.
“He said, I thought we were getting somewhere. I thought you were serious about what you wanted, if you want to get out of that trailer park … ” Daniels testified. “I was offended, because I never lived in a trailer park.” Daniels said they had sex.
The description of the hotel room encounter was uncomfortable and cringe-inducing testimony, one of the prosecutors suggested in closing arguments. But that was precisely why Trump was so desperate to suppress the story – and conceal that he had done so.
“This scheme, cooked up by these men, at this time, could very well be what got President Trump elected,” the prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said."
Experts Question Alito’s Failure to Recuse Himself in Flag Controversy - The New York Times
Experts Question Alito’s Failure to Recuse Himself in Flag Controversy
"Legal ethicists welcomed the fact that the justice gave reasons for staying on two Jan. 6 cases, a break from court tradition. But they said his rationale was open to criticism.
Supreme Court justices seldom give reasons for their decisions to recuse themselves. Even rarer are explanations for deciding to participate in a case when they have been accused of conflicts of interest.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. is an exception. He seems positively eager to explain himself. But whether his explanation has helped or hurt his cause is open to question.
On Wednesday, Justice Alito wrote letters to Democratic lawmakers saying he was not only permitted but also obligated to sit on two cases arising from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol despite controversies over flags displayed outside his houses associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement.
Experts in legal ethics said they welcomed Justice Alito’s decision to explain himself. But they were not persuaded by the reasoning in his letters, which said the flags had been flown by his wife and so did not require him to step aside in the pending cases, on whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution and on whether a federal obstruction law covers participants in the Jan. 6 assault.
Mr. Trump praised the justice in a radio interview on Wednesday. “Alito is a tough guy, and he’s strong and very, very smart, and he put out a great statement today,” Mr. Trump said.
The controversy surrounding Justice Alito reflects wider questions about ethics and politics at the court. Public trust in the court has fallen amid a swirl of ethics scandals in recent years, many involving whether justices should have recused themselves, and scrutiny is certain to be intense as they decide cases concerning Mr. Trump that could influence the outcome of the next election.
Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, said the quality of the reasoning in Justice Alito’s letters had shortcomings.
“I agree that Justice Alito’s wife has a First Amendment right to express her views,” Professor Frost said. “But if she does so on their shared property, in a way that would lead a reasonable person to question his impartiality, then he should respond by recusing himself.”
Professor Frost added that her conclusion would be no different had the controversy involved a liberal member of the court like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in 2020. “I would say the same,” she said, “if Justice Ginsburg’s husband had placed a ‘Gore won’ sign on the lawn of their shared home while the Bush-Gore election was being contested in the courts.”
But she added that Justice Alito’s decision to explain himself was part of a positive trend, saying that it was in keeping with a statement of principles from the court last year.
“Explanation can provide the public with relevant facts, which may forestall baseless speculation or correct misunderstandings,” she said.
James Sample, a law professor at Hofstra University, also said he had mixed feelings.
“The court has never suffered from an excess of transparency,” he said, “and an explanation is helpful if it’s thorough. Explanation is unwelcome if it’s hyper-selective and borderline dishonest.”
Justice Alito’s explanation of why he would not recuse himself was only his most recent. In June, he published an opinion essay in The Wall Street Journal explaining why he was not required to disqualify himself from cases involving a billionaire who had provided him with travel on a private jet. In September, he issued a statement rejecting demands from Democratic lawmakers that he recuse himself from a pending case after a lawyer involved in the matter interviewed him for The Journal.
Justice Alito’s refusal to recuse in the Jan. 6 cases comes as the court has been under growing pressure to address potential conflicts of interest.
Last April, as calls for a binding code of ethics for Supreme Court justices mounted, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. turned down a request to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In an apparent effort to reassure Congress and the public that the court was on the case, the chief justice attached the “statement on ethics principles and practices” that Professor Frost noted. It was signed by all nine members of the court.
“Individual justices, rather than the court, decide recusal issues,” the statement said, reciting a principle that would appear in the more formal code of conduct adopted by the court in November and at odds with the adage that no one should be a judge in his or her own case.
The interim statement also suggested that the justices might do more to explain their recusal decisions unless “public disclosure of the basis for recusal would be ill-advised.” Otherwise, it said, “a justice may provide a summary explanation of a recusal decision.” In addition, “a justice also may provide an extended explanation for any decision to recuse or not recuse.”
Since then, some justices have issued brief explanations for their recusals. Justice Elena Kagan, for instance, noted her recusal from a death penalty case on account of “prior government employment,” a reference to her service as U.S. solicitor general.
But even such terse explanations have been the exception. In January, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch did not say why he had recused himself from a different death penalty case, though it seemed to be because he had heard an aspect of it as a federal appeals court judge.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a break from his practices in other cases involving the 2020 election, recused himself in October when the Supreme Court turned down an appeal from John Eastman, his former law clerk and an architect of a plan to subvert the election. There was, again, no explanation.
And on Tuesday, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh recused himself from a case involving Michael Avenatti, a lawyer convicted in a plot to extort money from Nike. Mr. Avenatti had represented Julie Swetnick, who in 2018 accused Justice Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. Justice Kavanaugh, who denied the accusations, offered no explanation for his recusal this week.
The first extended explanation of a decision not to recuse appears to have come from Justice William H. Rehnquist, who joined the court in 1972 following service in the Justice Department. That June, he voted with the majority in Laird v. Tatum, a 5-to-4 decision that dismissed a challenge to Army surveillance of domestic political groups in the Vietnam War era though he had defended the spying program in Congressional testimony and criticized the suit while a government lawyer.
His participation was heavily criticized. In a statement that fall, he wrote that no rule of judicial ethics prohibited staying on the case and that a 4-to-4 deadlock resulting in an automatic affirmance was undesirable.
“I do regard the question as a fairly debatable one, even though upon analysis I would resolve it in favor of sitting,” Justice Rehnquist, who would be elevated to chief justice in 1986, wrote. Supreme Court justices are unlike other federal judges, he wrote, as they cannot be replaced if they disqualify themselves. That gives rise, he wrote, to a presumptive duty to sit, one also cited by Justice Alito on Wednesday.
It is unknown if Justice Alito sought advice from his colleagues on his decision not to recuse himself. Correspondence in Justice Rehnquist’s papers showed that he consulted with several members of the court.
In the summer of 1972, for instance, he wrote to Justice Potter Stewart at his farm in New Hampshire, saying he needed help sorting out the conflicting advice. Some of the criticism of his actions had been “snide,” Justice Rehnquist wrote, and “The New York Times and Washington Post tend to feature the matter at every opportunity.”
In a handwritten note six days later, Justice Stewart was ambivalent about the wisdom of issuing a statement explaining the decision on recusal, though he called the idea “basically healthy.”
“On the other hand,” Justice Stewart said, “I am sure you are not so sanguine as to think that the memo will satisfy the N.Y. Times, Washington Post or other critics. It will probably just further irritate them, and they do have the last word.”
More than three decades passed until the next major statement from a justice on a decision not to recuse. In 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that he could vote on a caseinvolving the official conduct of Vice President Dick Cheney despite the fact that the two had gone duck hunting together, flying to Louisiana on Mr. Cheney’s government plane.
“Our flight down cost the government nothing,” wrote Justice Scalia, who died in 2016, “since space-available was the condition of our invitation.”
Justice Alito adopted the same accounting methodology last year in his opinion essay in The Wall Street Journal, saying that he was not required to disclose a trip on the private jet of a billionaire who frequently had cases before the Supreme Court because he had flown in “a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant.”
In his 1972 statement, Justice Rehnquist said recusal involved a delicate balance.
“Proof that a justice’s mind at the time he joined the court was a complete tabula rasa in the area of constitutional adjudication,” he said, “would be evidence of lack of qualification, not lack of bias.”
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
U.S. created Indian boarding schools to destroy cultures and seize land - Washington Post
U.S. created Indian boarding schools to destroy cultures and seize land
About this story
"First photo: Sioux children are seen before entering Hampton Institute in Virginia in 1897. Native American children — some as young as 5 — were forcibly removed from their homes and sent hundreds of miles to Indian boarding schools. (Library of Congress)
This story is part of a series examining the legacy of America’s network of Indian boarding schools. Do you have a tip or story idea for our investigation? Email our team at boardingschools@washpost.com.
Reporting by Dana Hedgpeth and Sari Horwitz.
Additional reporting by Emmanuel Martinez and Nate Jones.
Design by Natalie Vineberg. Development by Jake Crump. Graphics by Janice Kai Chen. Video by Alice Li.
Editing by Jenna Pirog, Sarah Childress, David S. Fallis and Wendy Galietta. Additional editing by Jay Wang and Courtney Kan.
Design editing by Madison Walls. Photo editing by Robert Miller and Troy Witcher. Graphic editing by Emily M. Eng. Video editing by Nicki DeMarco.
Additional support from Cameron Barr, Kathy Baird, Matthew Callahan, Brandon Carter, Matt Clough, Maddie Driggers, Salwan Georges, Stephanie Hays, Scott Higham, Angela Hill, Jeff Leen, Jenna Lief, Jordan Melendrez, Martha Murdock, Sarah Murray, Amy Nakamura, Kyley Schultz, Erica Snow and Peter Wallsten.
Sources
“Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928,” David Wallace Adams.
“Boarding School Blues: Revisiting American Indian Educational Experiences,” edited and with an introduction by Clifford E. Trafzer, Jean A. Keller and Lorene Sisquoc.
“Boarding Schools Seasons: American Indian Families 1900-1940,” Brenda J. Child.
“American Indian Education: A History,” second edition, Jon Reyhner and Jeanne Eder.
“The Spokane Indians: Children of the Sun,” Robert H. Ruby and John A. Brown.
“American Indian Children at School 1850-1930,” Michael C. Coleman.
“Recollections of Fort Belknap’s Past,” Morris “Davy” Belgard, 1982.
U.S. Department of the Interior’s Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative — Investigative Report, 2022.
The National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition.
“Away From Home: American Indian Boarding Schools Stories,” The Heard Museum, Phoenix.
“The Old Chief’s Appeal: Eloquent and Convincing Address by the Venerable Chief of the Spokanes,” Spokane (Wash.) Daily Chronicle, Oct. 12, 1891."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)