Prosecution Targeted Trump, Now They Search for a Crime

 Generally, there’s a crime and the prosecution makes a case. With Trump, the order is reversed. New York prosecutors picked their man, now they search for a crime, after a trial has started.

If you have been following the trial of Trump, and you are the least bit honest about things, you know its a kangaroo judge and prosecution. It remains to be seen how corrupt the jury is or isn’t.

Democracy on Trial

The Wall Street Journal comments on The Trump Trial and Democracy

Outside of New York a reasonable person might think that such promises—identifying the defendant first, with charges to be named later—ought to be disqualifying for any fair prosecution since they are antithetical to American justice. Inside a New York jury room, reasonable people might wonder why Mr. Bragg would want to talk about an unrelated civil case if he really has the goods to make his own criminal charges stick.

Trump Indictment Is a Perversion of Campaign-Finance Law

Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith wrote for the Journal last year Trump Indictment Is a Perversion of Campaign-Finance Law

To recap how we got here: Ms. Daniels, a pornographic film performer, alleges she had a fling with Mr. Trump in 2006, nearly a decade before he entered the Republican primary for president. Once Mr. Trump became a candidate, Ms. Daniels began demanding money in exchange for her silence. Mr. Trump obliged, and his company, the Trump Organization, sent $130,000 to Ms. Daniels through Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. The expense was apparently recorded on the company books as “legal fees,” which the indictment is expected to allege was a falsification of business records.

Mr. Bragg’s political problem is that this charge is chump change, merely a misdemeanor under New York law. To ratchet it up to a felony indictment, the district attorney has to show, among other things, that the falsification was designed to conceal another crime. That crime is believed to be a campaign-finance violation—an illegal corporate contribution by the Trump Organization to the Trump presidential campaign—which the false business reporting was meant to conceal. Here’s where Mr. Bragg’s legal problem comes in: Was the hush money a campaign contribution? The governing statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act, provides that a contribution is any donation made “for the purpose of influencing any campaign for federal office.” The Trump Organization, says Mr. Bragg, paid Ms. Daniels to prevent revelations that would have hurt Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign. Thus the payments were “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election—and, since corporate contributions to a campaign for federal office are illegal, the case is closed.

Not so fast.The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that because campaign-finance laws infringe on core First Amendment activity, they can’t be dependent on vague, subjective interpretations. Accordingly, the clause “for the purpose of influencing any federal election” is an objective standard. As another section of the statute states, an obligation isn’t a campaign expenditure if it exists “irrespective” of the campaign. In other words, campaign funds pay for campaigning—the campaign manager’s salary, ads, campaign travel, venues for rallies, polling and so on. They don’t pay for personal expenses not created by the act of campaigning, even if the candidate intends for them to benefit the campaign. 

The statute’s objective nature is demonstrated by a noninclusive list of things that campaign funds may not be spent on no matter how much they might benefit—or be intended to benefit—a campaign. For example, if a candidate wants to look good in a debate and purchases a $4,000 suit he would never have bought if he weren’t running for office—that is to say, he buys it with the subjective intent to influence an election—it still can’t be purchased with campaign funds, because he would have to buy clothing anyway. A country-club membership can’t be purchased with campaign funds, no matter how much the candidate intends for it to benefit his campaign by giving him a place to schmooze donors.

In other words, the “crime” that Mr. Bragg claims is being covered up isn’t a crime at all. Worse still, one is left with the distinct impression that if Mr. Trump had used campaign funds to pay Ms. Daniels, Mr. Bragg would be alleging that the underlying crime the business records were intended to cover up was the illegal conversion of campaign funds to personal use. This is a classic Catch-22 that undermines the rule of law.

Porn Star Stormy Daniels Ridiculous Testimony

Time Magazine has this recap of Porn Star Stormy Daniels’ Testimony

The testimony carried all of the bawdy details one would expect in a made-for-tabloid tryst. There were silk pajamas. The porn star spanked the billionaire “right on the butt” with a magazine featuring him on the cover. He shared pictures of his wife, who was nowhere near the hotel penthouse. She alleged she felt a power imbalance that left her feeling like she had few options but to proceed with the unprotected and “brief” sexual engagement. She even seemed to suggest the whole affair may not have happened with consent. And that was just the first of at least two days of this.

On the legal front, you can already see the seeds for a Trump appeal taking life as his lawyers repeatedly objected that the details being presented by Daniels were so prejudicial that it would undoubtedly taint the jury’s decision. But Merchan declined their request for a mistrial.

“There will be grounds for appeal. But I don’t think it’s enough to win an appeal,” says Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor who is watching the case closely and has been critical of the state’s strategy. “Not every error is going to cause a mistrial or a win on appeal.”

The enmity between Daniels—born Stephanie Clifford—and Trump was on full display for jurors and judges from afar alike to see. Trump muttered profanity during her testimony and his lawyers were telegraphing on Wednesday that the next day could bring harsh questioning. Daniels was far from circumspect about her motivations, acknowledging she wanted to hurt Trump by coming forward with her story. These two, it is incredibly apparent, loathe each other and want to see the other destroyed—which may make for great drama, but not immediately useful in the court proceedings. In a microcosm, they are fairly good proxies for how half of this country sees the other.

The Washington Post Transcript

The Washington Post offers this transcript of What Stormy Daniels said happened in Trump’s hotel suite

At the opening of Tuesday’s court session, Trump’s attorney Susan Necheles began by objecting — in advance of testimony by Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford — to the prosecution seeking “any details of any sexual acts.” The charges, the defense noted, are not over alleged sexual acts.

Susan Necheles, defense attorney: We think that this is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the charges in this case. And to the extent that it has any relevance, it’s unduly prejudicial. And there really is no reason for it to be coming into the case about books and records here.

Judge Merchan: So when you say that some details are necessary, can you give me a sense of what you have in mind?

The prosecution argued that the details are important if the jury is to understand why Trump would have been motivated to pay money to prevent a story about the alleged encounter with Daniels from appearing in news reports.

Daniels, who appeared nervous and spoke quickly, gave an incredibly detailed account of the evening she went to Trump’s suite at a Lake Tahoe resort following a golf event, where she said they had sex.

Daniels’s account also included how she stared at the ceiling during sex, since she was “trying to think about anything other than what was happening there” — to which the judge sustained an objection. She also said Trump didn’t wear a condom, and described the position in which they had sex. After the encounter, Daniels said she remained silent as she gathered her possessions.

Daniels said they stayed in touch because she hoped Trump would let her appear on his hit reality show, “The Apprentice.”

Immediately after the lunch break, Trump’s attorneys argued that Daniels’s testimony about the sex act was irrelevant and prejudicial to the point that it warranted a mistrial.

Trump’s lawyer Blanche: The Court set guardrails for this testimony. And the guardrails by this witness, answering questions from the government, were just thrown to the side.

In particular, Trump’s attorney argued that many of the details were simply intended to embarrass his client and “inflame the jury” in a trial fundamentally about business records, including any suggestion there were “safety concerns” in the encounter.

The judge said it “would have been better” if the prosecution hadn’t gone into certain areas, but suggested that “in fairness,” the witness was “a little difficult to control.”

Merchan: I do think that there were some things that were better left unsaid. Having said that, I don’t believe we are at the point where a mistrial is warranted.

All of this is what happens when a trial starts while the prosecution is still in search of a crime.

Any fair person should hope that if there is a conviction, it will be overturned on appeal.

Trump is not above the law. No one is. But Trump should not be beneath the law either. And that’s clearly what is in progress.

The Trump Trial Opening Statements Confirm a Zoo Spectacle

On April 22, I commented The Trump Trial Opening Statements Confirm a Zoo Spectacle

Sadly, but expectedly, things have gotten much worse.

https://mishtalk.com/politics/the-prosecution-targeted-trump-now-they-search-for-a-crime/

Jan. 6 Arrests Running At Nearly Double The Rate Of 2023 And 2022: Report

 by Joseph M. Hanneman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Nearly 1,425 people have been arrested on Jan. 6 charges, with 2024 arrests running at almost double the rate from 2023 and 2022, a U.S. Department of Justice report shows.

Through close of business on May 3, the FBI has arrested 1,424 suspects in the 40 months since the breach and violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the DOJ reported in its monthly update.

That includes 159 people who were arrested during the first four months of 2024, nearly double the 83 arrested during the same period in 2023 and the 85 arrested in the same period in 2022, DOJ records show.

The FBI has made 391 Jan. 6 arrests since May 2023 and 614 arrests since May 2022, according to DOJ data.

Jan. 6 is the largest, most sweeping investigation in FBI history—one that DOJ leaders have pledged will continue unabated. The DOJ has until Jan. 6, 2026, to charge individuals before the statute of limitations expires.

Some 1,334 people have been charged with entering and remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds, the most common Jan. 6 misdemeanor. Of those, 127 people were charged with entering and remaining while armed with a deadly or dangerous weapon.

Only two defendants were arrested over the past month for corruptly obstructing an official proceeding—the most commonly charged Jan. 6 felony that now affects 355 people—a controversial charge currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thirty-six percent of defendants—510—have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees. More than a quarter of those involved use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, the report said.

About 820 defendants have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal crimes. Sixty-nine percent were misdemeanor charges, and 31 percent were felonies.

Nearly 885 defendants have had their cases adjudicated, with 61 percent sentenced to prison time, 19 percent given home detention, and 3.5 percent given some combination of the two, the report said.

About 160 defendants have been found guilty at contested trials, the report said, including three tried in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Another three dozen defendants were found guilty based on an agreed-upon set of facts.

Of the 199 defendants who have gone to trial, 82 were found guilty of assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers and/or obstructing officers during civil disorder—both felony charges.

Every defendant who opted for a jury trial has been found guilty of at least some of the charges lodged against them. Only three defendants have been acquitted of all charges. Those cases involved bench trials.

The rate of arrests picked up during the last quarter of 2023 and has continued through four months of 2024.

Supporters of President Donald Trump protest at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images)

On April 16, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a challenge to the DOJ’s novel use of a corporate fraud statute to prosecute Jan. 6 protesters with a 20-year felony.

The Supreme Court said on Dec. 13, 2023, that it would take up Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer’s challenge to the use of 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)(2) to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants for obstructing Congress’s tallying of Electoral College votes.

If the High Court strikes down the use of the law for Jan. 6 applications, it could upend the aforementioned 355 cases and land a blow to the DOJ’s prosecution effort.

However, prosecutors have indicated they could seek sentencing enhancements on other charges or request that prison sentences be served consecutively as ways to ensure that defendants still serve the same time behind bars.

A small number of defendants have been released from prison pending the Supreme Court decision. Others have had sentencing hearings postponed in anticipation of High Court action in the case by June 30.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/jan-6-arrests-running-nearly-double-rate-2023-and-2022-report

Philadelphia Mayor Starts Long-Awaited Process Of Cleaning Out City's Open Air Drug Markets

 Philadelphia's new mayor Cherelle Parker may be succeeding with what seems like a relatively simple task that her predecessors were wholly incapable of performing: cleaning out the city's open air drug markets in its Kensington section.

Pay attention, Democrats. There's a chance it actually can be done.

During Monday's Committee of the Whole meeting, City Council members pressed Managing Director Adam Thiel and other officials for details on the planned "encampment resolution" in Kensington and budget concerns at the Office of Homeless Services.

The city announced it would clear homeless encampments on Wednesday along the 3000 and 3100 blocks of Kensington Avenue, according to the Philadelphia Tribune. 

City workers have been reaching out to the homeless, informing them of their removal from the sidewalks and offering beds in treatment facilities. This initiative aligns with a significant policy shift in Mayor Cherelle Parker's 100 Day Plan to address drug use and violence in Kensington.

Thiel emphasized a medically focused approach to treating those affected and addressing their needs. While police will be present during Wednesday's actions, Thiel aims to provide support to those seeking help.

The Philadelphia Tribune reported that, to address neighborhood concerns, the city will eventually displace hundreds of unhoused individuals to clear encampments in Kensington. At-Large Councilmember Kendra Brooks asked if there are enough beds for all those displaced and managing Director Adam Thiel assured that there are sufficient beds citywide.

“We are building this ecosystem of facilities so we can get folks to the right place for the right care, for the right time, until they get back on their feet and can have access to economic opportunity,” he said.

Thiel noted that the "specific approach established by the Parker administration is the first time it will be attempted in the country."

Council President Kenyatta Johnson suggested sending those needing 60+ days of treatment to facilities outside Philadelphia and partnering with Treatment Court, which mandates treatment instead of incarceration for substance abuse issues.

But it looks as though the city is holding the Office of Homeless Services accountable, which is likely a great start to at least getting better results than in years past. Councilmembers questioned Thiel and Office of Homeless Services Executive Director David Holloman about the office’s capacity to address Philadelphia's growing homeless population, which has increased by 12% since last year.

The office had asked for an additional $15 million last year, which Gilmore Richardson pressed back on: “We held back $5.1 million … because you all at the time could not provide the invoices to help us understand why you needed those dollars.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/philadelphia-mayor-starts-long-awaited-process-cleaning-out-citys-open-air-drug-markets

House GOP accuse K-12 leaders of weak response to antisemitism

 Republican lawmakers on Wednesday went after the leaders of prominent K-12 school systems in the U.S. over what they say is a lack of enforcement when antisemitic incidents occur in their districts.  

“The topic of today’s hearing is particularly troubling. It’s hard to grasp how antisemitism has become such a dominant force in our K through 12 schools,” said Rep. Aaron Bean (R-Fla.), head of the Education panel Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. ”Some kids as young as second graders spewing Nazi propaganda, which begs the question, who has positioned these young minds to attack the Jewish people?” 

While the three school leaders at the hearing appeared to suffer no major breakout moments like the ones that have troubled college administrators in recent hearings, there were tense moments of questioning regarding punishments for antisemitism in their schools.  

Much of the hearing focused on David Banks, chancellor of New York City Public Schools, who had fiery interactions with members.  

Republicans keyed in on the former Hillcrest High School principal who was removed from his position after a protest occurred against a pro-Israel teacher. Lawmakers took issue that the principal was only transferred to a new position and not fired.  

“That’s concerning to me that you have him in a senior position,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who has been taking the lead for Republicans in Education hearings on antisemitism. Stefanik accused the leaders of paying “lip service” to addressing antisemitism at schools, saying that they’ve had a “lack of enforcement” and “a lack of accountability.”  

Banks was willing to argue with numerous members of Congress during the hearing, emphasizing the principal was removed from the school and the individual is entitled to due process. It can be difficult to fire teachers under union processes, he noted.

He also made a point to push back on members’ claims that his whole school system is antisemitic, saying that while some members of Congress have also said antisemitic things, he doesn’t cast the whole institution as antisemitic.  

Banks emphasized numerous times his district has suspended around 30 students and disciplined teachers for antisemitism.  

Enikia Ford Morthel, superintendent of the Berkeley Unified School District, also pushed back on any assertion antisemitism is pervasive in her schools.  

Morthel faced an intense moment with Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) after he pointed out she initially agreed that the phrase “from the river to see, Palestine will be free” is antisemitic but stood by lesson plans her faculty created that said some people use that phrase as a call to peace.

“Is it any wonder that you said earlier this is antisemitic and you put this on a slide in a classroom and then students going around the halls saying it? I don’t think there’s anything surprising about that,” Kiley said.  

Morthel refused to answer questions about disciplinary actions against antisemitism, saying records for students and faculty in the state of California are confidential.  

Democrats spent time pointing out the vehemence with which Republicans have gone after antisemitism despite supporting former President Trump, who has met with multiple people accused of antisemitism, such as white supremacist Nick Fuentes.  

“Despite these persistent examples of comments that others have called antisemitic and continued relationships with well-known antisemites, I have not heard one word of concern for my colleagues across the aisle. In fact, what we have seen is consolidation of support for the former president,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), ranking member of the subcommittee.

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4651664-house-republicans-k-12-antisemitism-schools/

Draft contempt report accuses Garland of ‘hindering’ GOP impeachment probe

A draft report from House Republicans advocating for holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress accuses him of having hindered and impeded their impeachment inquiry into President Biden by withholding an audio recording of his conversation with special counsel Robert Hur.

The draft document, obtained by The Hill, will serve as the grounds for the report the House Judiciary Committee will consider next week as it mulls whether to forward the contempt resolution to the full House floor.

“Its failure to fully comply with the Committees’ subpoenas has hindered the House’s ability to adequately conduct oversight over Special Counsel Hur regarding his investigative findings and the President’s retention and disclosure of classified materials and impeded the Committees’ impeachment inquiry,” the draft report states.

The bid to get an audio recording of the interview comes as the committees have already obtained a transcript.

The draft shows the extent to which House impeachment leaders have zeroed in on a seemingly unrelated probe as it pushes ahead with its own investigation into what they’ve deemed influence peddling by members of the Biden family.

Biden’s interview with Hur instead covers how classified materials from his time as vice president ended up in both his home and an office he used after leaving the administration.

“The subpoenas issued to the Department by the Judiciary and Oversight Committees are part of the House’s impeachment inquiry,”  the committee writes in the 16-page report.

“As a part of the Committees’ inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden, the Committees have sought information regarding President Biden’s mishandling of classified information. The Committees have sought this information to determine whether President Biden willfully retained classified information and documents related to, among other places, Ukraine to assist his family’s business dealings or to enrich his family. Doing so would be an abuse of his office of public trust.”

Axios first reported the conclusions of the report.

The Justice Department has turned over numerous Hur documents and even chided House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) for failing to come to review the documents on Ukraine.

Still, they’ve asserted repeatedly that the Hur interview has little to do with the GOP impeachment inquiry.

“The Committees have received the information you requested. That information may not have substantiated the concerns the Committees articulated, but it does appear to help resolve them and your inquiry,” Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte wrote to Comer and House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in an earlier letter urging them to avoid conflict over the issue.

The letter goes on to assert the chairs may have requested the information for “political purposes that should have no role” in determining which law enforcement files are shared.

DOJ declined Wednesday to comment on the draft.

The Hur report includes limited references to Biden’s work in Ukraine, detailing only two documents on the matter, which include a transcript of a call he made as vice president to then-Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

Hur places little importance on Biden’s note to preserve a copy of the transcript.

“The two exchanged pleasantries and the Prime Minister heaped praise upon Mr. Biden for his December 9, 2015 speech to Ukraine’s parliament. They did not engage in a substantive policy discussion. There may be technical or nuanced reasons to maintain the classification of the call, but no reasonable jury could conclude the call or its contents were national defense information after the end of Obama administration, or that by asking for a transcript of the call Biden intended to retain national defense information,” Hur wrote.

Impeachment investigators have yet to find a smoking gun to back their claims that Biden took any action to benefit his family, including his son, who at one point sat on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Instead, authorities have arrested a former FBI informant who relayed the allegations that were central to the GOP probe, accusing the informant of fabricating his claims that Biden accepted a bribe.

Republicans already have transcripts of Biden’s interview with Hur, conducted over two days, which do not appear to include discussion of the Ukraine documents.

Still, they have argued the audio itself is essential to their work. 

In letters to the Justice Department they’ve argued the format contains “revealing verbal cues” and that “a subject’s pauses and inflections can provide context or evidence of whether a subject is evasive or suffers from a ‘poor memory.’”

“The Department’s unsupported speculation about the Committees’ motives in insisting that you produce the audio recordings has no bearing on your legal obligation to produce the subpoenaed materials,” they wrote last month.

The Justice Department said sharing the audio could harm its ability to get future cooperation in investigations if subjects believe their interviews with be shared with Congress and have accused the committees of seeking the audio for political purposes.

“It seems that the more information you receive, the less satisfied you are, and the less justification you have for contempt, the more you rush towards it,” Uriarte wrote.

The contempt vote, if approved, would go from the committee to the full House floor.

Though censure of a sitting attorney general would be remarkable, it would likely have little practical effect. Contempt votes largely act as a referral to the Justice Department, which then weighs whether there are grounds for contempt of Congress charges.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4652373-draft-contempt-report-accuses-garland-of-hindering-gop-impeachment-probe/

'Congressional progressives want to eliminate medical debt '

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is leading an effort to wipe out the medical debt of the entire country.

The legislation introduced Wednesday — co-sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rashida Tliab (D-Mich.) — would eliminate all $220 billion in medical debt held by Americans, wipe it from credit reports, and drastically limit the accrual of future medical debt.     According to an analysis of Census Bureau data, about 20 million Americans owe medical debt. Around 14 million Americans owe more than $1,000 in medical debt, and about 3 million owe medical debt of more than $10,000.    “People in our country should not be going bankrupt because they got cancer and could not afford to pay their medical bills,” Sanders said in a statement.     “No one in America should face financial ruin because of the outrageous cost of an unexpected medical emergency or a hospital stay. The time has come to cancel all medical debt and guarantee health care to all as a human right, not a privilege.”    The bill would create a federal grant program to cancel all existing medical debt, “prioritizing low-resource providers and vulnerable populations.”    Within just one year of enactment, the bill would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to cancel all debt owed by patients to hospitals. Within two years, the program is meant to include any other medical debt held by U.S. patients    The bill would also make it illegal to collect medical debt incurred prior to the bill’s enactment, and create a private right of action for patients.    A KFF report from 2022 found that about 1 out of 3 adults said they expected to be able to pay off a medical bill within one year and about a quarter said they could pay off their bills within two years. But 1 out of 5 adults said they don’t foresee ever being able to pay off their debt.    The idea of wiping out medical debt is thought to be broadly popular; a 2022 YouGov poll found 66 percent of Americans favored providing some relief for people with medical debt. The support was bipartisan, as 56 percent of Republicans said they supported medical debt relief.   https://thehill.com/newsletters/health-care/4652472-congressional-progressives-want-to-eliminate-medical-debt/

Study finds THC lingers in breastmilk with no clear peak point

 When breastfeeding mothers in a recent study used cannabis, its psychoactive component THC showed up in the milk they produced. The Washington State University-led research also found that, unlike alcohol, when THC was detected in milk there was no consistent time when its concentration peaked and started to decline.

Importantly, the researchers discovered that the amount of THC they detected in milk was low—they estimated that infants received an average of 0.07 mg of THC per day. For comparison, a common low-dose edible contains 2 mg of THC. The research team stressed that it is unknown whether this amount has any impact on the infant.

"Breastfeeding parents need to be aware that if they use cannabis, their infants are likely consuming cannabinoids via the milk they produce, and we do not know whether this has any effect on the developing infant," said Courtney Meehan, a WSU biological anthropologist who led the project and is the study's corresponding author.

Since other research has shown that cannabis is one of the most widely used drugs during breastfeeding, the researchers aimed to uncover how long cannabinoids, like THC, persisted in breastmilk.

For this study, published in the journal Breastfeeding Medicine, the researchers analyzed milk donated by 20 breastfeeding mothers who used cannabis. The participants, who all had infants younger than six months, provided detailed reports on their cannabis use. They collected milk after abstaining from using cannabis for at least 12 hours and then at regular intervals after use. All of this was done in their own homes, at a time of their choosing and with cannabis they purchased themselves.

The researchers then analyzed the milk for cannabinoids. They found that the milk produced by these women always had detectable amounts of THC, even when the mothers had abstained for 12 hours.

"Human milk has compounds called lipids, and cannabinoids are lipophilic, meaning they dissolve in those lipids. This may mean that cannabinoids like THC tend to accumulate in milk—and potentially in infants who drink it," said Meehan.

The research also revealed that people had different peak THC concentrations in their milk. For participants who used cannabis only one time during the study, cannabinoids peaked approximately 30 minutes to 2.5 hours after use and then started to decline. For participants who used multiple times during the study, the majority showed a continual increase in concentrations across the day.

"There was such a range. If you're trying to avoid breastfeeding when the concentration of THC peaks, you're not going to know when THC is at its peak in the milk," said lead author Elizabeth Holdsworth, who worked on this study while a WSU post-doctoral researcher and is now on the faculty of The Ohio State University.

A related qualitative study published in the Journal of Cannabis Research by the research team revealed that many breastfeeding moms are using cannabis for therapeutic purposes—to manage anxiety, other mental health issues or chronic pain. The mothers often chose cannabis over using other medications because they felt it was safer.

"Our results suggest that mothers who use cannabis are being thoughtful in their decisions," said co-author Shelley McGuire, a University of Idaho professor who studies maternal-infant nutrition. "These women were mindful about their choices. This is far from a random lifestyle choice."

While in most cases, the women were using cannabis as alternative treatment for a variety of conditions, McGuire pointed out that there is no evidence yet whether it is safer or more harmful. In fact, scientists know almost nothing about how many commonly used drugs may impact breastfeeding babies, partly because women, especially those who are breastfeeding, have historically been left out of clinical trials on medicines.

"This is an area that needs substantial, rigorous research for moms to know what's best," McGuire said.

Some research has been done regarding alcohol with guidelines for new mothers to wait at least two hours after consuming alcohol before breastfeeding. Nothing similar has been developed for cannabis, which has been growing in popularity.

The collaborative research team is currently working to address some of that knowledge gap with further research on cannabis use in breastfeeding moms, holistic composition of the milk they produce and its effects on infant development.

More information: Elizabeth A. Holdsworth et al, Human Milk Cannabinoid Concentrations and Associations with Maternal Factors: The Lactation and Cannabis (LAC) Study, Breastfeeding Medicine (2024). DOI: 10.1089/bfm.2024.0021

Caroline B. Smith et al, Cannabis use, decision making, and perceptions of risk among breastfeeding individuals: the Lactation and Cannabis (LAC) Study, Journal of Cannabis Research (2024). DOI: 10.1186/s42238-023-00212-w

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-05-thc-lingers-breastmilk-peak.html