Editors note: A previous version of this story described Amber Krabach as being sympathetic to QAnon. Krabach has denied association with the conspiracy theory and political movement. As reported by Crosscut, Krabach has posted QAnon messages and images on social media, including the movements slogan: where we go one, we go all.

Amber Krabach, Republican legislative candidate, is defending the presence of signs littered across King Countys ballot drop boxes that claim this ballot box is under surveillance.

Krabach, a Republican state House candidate from Woodinville, has posted QAnon-related memes and tweets, sometimes under a hashtag that abbreviates the QAnon rallying cry, Where We Go One, We Go All. Krabach is running as a third party against incumbent state Rep. Larry Springer, D-Kirkland, in the 45th Legislative District, and Republican candidate John Gibbons.

After the signs started appearing next to ballot drop boxes across the Seattle area, many officials were quick to call the signs voter intimidation, but now the former King County GOP Elections Integrity Commission (EIC) chair Krabach says the signs were just an effort to inform the public of the law and to provide accurate information about how to report concerns.

On the signs were big red letters, reading this ballot drop box is under surveillance, and accepting compensation for harvesting or depositing ballots may be a violation of Federal Law, along with a QR code leading to the election incident report on the King County GOP website.

When brought to their attention, Michael Patrick Thomas, Chair of the King County Republican Party, said party officials were unaware of the signs. Thomas said they were created by the EIC and they had acted outside of its authority and without the express knowledge, permission, or consent of the King County Republican Party.

Krabach disputes the GOP chair though, asserting that the honorable EIC was never affiliated with the signage project, and the dissolution of the committee was unjustified.

The EIC has long been working toward increasing the election integrity in the county though, Krabach said, with fears of voter fraud at an all-time high across the country. A poll done by PolitiFact in June 2022 shows that 70% of Republicans believe there was some voter fraud in the 2020 election.

King County Elections conducts some of the safest and most secure elections anywhere in our nation, and these intimidation tactics are a direct extension of the anti-democratic rhetoric behind The Big Lie, King County Executive Dow Constantine said. Voter intimidation is a state and federal crime, and Ive directed Sheriff Cole-Tindall to investigate.

Under surveillance ballot-box signs likely voter intimidation, officials say

This is not enough to ensure the election integrity, and the EIC was put in place to advocate for voter increasing security, says Krabach.

King County has been asked numerous times to add security cameras to the 75+ drop boxes around our county because there is simply no way to effectively monitor them otherwise, Krabach said. They have outright refused to provide this service to the public. The surveillance sign project was a private, salutary effort to inform the public of the law and to provide accurate information about how to report concerns.

To back up her claims that the signs were completely legal, Krabach points to the election observer program that is already run by the city. In the program, volunteers from both political parties are invited to observe the opening and recording of ballot information, but not the actual drop boxes in the city.

It is not voter intimidation, or otherwise unlawful, to provide basic, factual information about federal election law, Krabach said. Any assertion to the contrary is inappropriate, and has the appearance of intending to keep voters, and the public at large, from being aware of this information

While observing the drop boxes is not illegal, the Washington Secretary of States office points out that if people feel their access is impeded, or are not comfortable casting their ballot, then it might be considered voter intimidation.

There are many ways curious or concerned voters can observe and engage in our electoral process. However, voter intimidation is not one of them, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said. Washington law permits voters to drop off ballots for others.Signs intended to make voters feel like they are being watched and monitored and violating the law by depositing ballots is voter intimidation, period.

While city officials have removed the signs, Krabach is not happy with how the situation has been handled.

Instructing their employees to steal these signs is not only a violation of my First Amendment rights to free speech and free expression but also a flagrant theft of private property, Krabach said. With county and state officials now joining in to target citizen observers, while silencing their speech and trying to intimidate them out of their efforts to obtain assurance of election integrity, Id like to know if this seemingly tyrannical pile-on is really something they believe will increase voter confidence in our election process.

Elections officials called the placement of the signs serious offenses that would be fully investigated, so those who posted them would be held accountable.

Go here to see the original:

Violation of my First Amendment rights, House candidate says of removal of election surveillance signs - MyNorthwest

Disputing that restrictions on race-related workplace training violate the First Amendment, the state is asking a federal judge to toss out a challenge by businesses to a law that Gov. Ron DeSantis dubbed the Stop WOKE Act.

Attorneys for the state last week filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to prevent a preliminary injunction. The law, which took effect July 1, targets how race-related concepts are addressed in workplace training and school classrooms, with DeSantis touting it as preventing indoctrination.

The states motions contended that the law does not violate the First Amendment because it only bars businesses from requiring employees to take part in training programs that use the targeted concepts.

They (the laws restrictions) leave employers free to engage in, promote and pay for any speech they wish, including the invidiously biased speech targeted by the act, and they leave willing employees free to hear and to join in it, the states lawyers wrote. All they prevent is the use of the employers coercive economic leverage over its employees to make them an offer they cant refuse: Listen to the companys speech or clear out your desk.

Businesses filed the lawsuit June 22 and subsequently requested a preliminary injunction against the law, which they said violates their ability to discuss issues such as racism and implicit bias with employees.

The act silences speech aimed at combating racism and sexism speech that is vital to the plaintiffs operation of their businesses, the June 30 preliminary-injunction request said. The governor, and the Florida Legislature acting at his behest, has repeatedly sought to punish companies who have engaged in speech that displeases him, in flagrant violation of the First Amendment. Because Governor DeSantis is not a monarch, but rather a democratically elected official, the Stop WOKE Act cannot stand.

Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker has scheduled an Aug. 8 hearing on the preliminary-injunction request.

The plaintiffs in the case are Primo Tampa, LLC, a Ben & Jerrys ice-cream franchisee; Honeyfund.com, Inc., a Clearwater-based technology company that provides wedding registries; and Chevara Orrin and her company, Collective Concepts, LLC. Orrin and her company provide consulting and training to employers about issues such as diversity, equity and inclusion.

The law (HB 7), which DeSantis signed April 22, spurred fierce debates before passing during this years legislative session. DeSantis called it the Stop Wrongs To Our Kids and Employees Act, or Stop WOKE Act.

The law lists eight race-related concepts and says that a required training program or other activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual (an employee) to believe any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin.

As an example of the concepts, the law targets compelling employees to believe that an individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.

The states attorneys wrote in one of the court documents filed Thursday that what the act does all it does is prevent employers from conscripting their employees, against their will, into the audience as a condition of their employment.

What it does not protect is the ability of employers to use their economic leverage over their workers to force them, on pain of losing their jobs or other sanction, to listen to such views, the states attorneys wrote. That is conduct, not speech, and the First Amendment has nothing to say about it.

The lawsuit, however, said the plaintiffs believe it is important that training and other activities address issues such as diversity and structural racism in workplaces. It said, for example, it is unclear how Honeyfund can move forward with training scheduled later this year and be consistent with the new law.

Without such DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) trainings, plaintiff Honeyfund would risk losing substantial benefits to its businesses, including improving collaboration and productivity, attracting more diverse candidates, increasing employee engagement and connecting with diverse clientele, the lawsuit said. Honeyfund is best positioned to know what practices are best for its business.

A separate case challenging parts of the law dealing with the education system also is pending in federal court.

View post:

Florida takes aim at a lawsuit over its new workplace training restrictions - WFSU

First Amendment

By Debra Cassens Weiss

July 25, 2022, 3:24 pm CDT

Image from Shutterstock.

Technology companies could face a disparate patchwork of laws regulating abortion information in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade, according to the Washington Post.

Democrats are considering laws to protect digital information from disclosure to prosecutors, while Republicans could seek to access such data, according to the Washington Post.

Another potential headache for tech companies is a South Carolina bill, S. 1373, according to the Washington Post and Ars Technica.

S. 1373 would make it illegal to provide information by telephone, internet or other mode of communication about how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion. The bill would also make websites and internet services liable in such situations, if the information is purposefully directed to a pregnant woman living in South Carolina.

Internet providers and technology companies would likely be protected from liability by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment, according to Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law. Section 230 protects technology companies for content posted by others.

But Goldman thinks that people could be at risk for aiding and abetting illegal abortions under the law if they send messages about how to obtain an abortion. And some technology companies may be reluctant to post information because of fears of legal liability, despite protections, Goldman said.

The South Carolina bill is based on a model proposal by the National Right to Life Committee, according to the Washington Post. The model proposal has since been revised, however. It now restricts websites and internet hosts only when abortion information is likely to be used for an unlawful abortion in South Carolina, rather than an abortion generally, according to James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee.

Hat tip to How Appealing, which noted the Washington Posts story.

Read more:

South Carolina bill would ban internet information on abortions; tech companies may face competing laws - ABA Journal

Ashli Babbitt's motherspoke to Rudy Giuliani on his podcast, released on Sunday, and claimed that her daughter is treated worse than a Black woman in America.

Aside from the racist claim, Babbitt joined a crowd of attackers in breaking through the windows and doors of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, marched through the halls of the Capitol, then directly to the outer office of the Speaker of the House, where she helped break out the glass with a Capitol Police officer standing with his gun drawn. She chose to go through the window anyway.

Even Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Ohio, a far-right supporter of Donald Trump told Good Morning America, the officer "didn't have a choice at that time. They were trying to come through the front door, which is where I was at in the chamber, and in the back, they were trying to come through the speaker's lobby, and that's problematic when you're trying to defend two fronts."

"When they broke the glass in the back, the [police] lieutenant that was therehim and I already had multiple conversations prior to thisand he didn't have a choice at that time. The mob was going to come through the door, there was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time. And when he [drew] his weapon, that's a decision that's very hard for anyone to make and, once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force."

Giuliani said that he may have been among the first to see the video. "I saw it I saw it, I saw it, three hours after I may have been the first one to see the film. When I saw it with several homicide detectives."

Co-host Maria Ryan claimed, falsely, that there was new information becoming available about anti-fascist protesters and Capitol Police officers that she implied were actually the ones behind the Jan. 6 attack.

"New film is coming out all the time," she claimed.

"Nancy Pelosi sitting up there in her castle mad that the minions dared show up that day well, you know there are a million strong people there to address their government and they made an attempt to kill the First Amendment," said Babbitt's mother Micki Witthoeft. "But the First Amendment isn't dead. It's wounded but it's not dead. And people are startin' to realize things that happened that day."

She went on to say that the House Select Committee is only there to "brainwash American citizens." She believes that because the Jan. 6 committee aired the public hearings in prime time that the Jan. 6 attackers now can't get a fair trial before a jury anywhere in America.

Withoeft then claimed that the officer who shot her was checking his earpiece and that a signal flare went up at the time her daughter was shot. It's unclear what she's talking about, however. She attacked the officer and questioned the investigation.

Ryan then claimed that videos show Babbitt trying to stop the men from breaking the glass, but Ryan claimed the ones decked out in MAGA gear were anti-fascists. She also claimed that Babbitt was trying to help officers, but didn't explain why then Babbitt climbed through the glass while an officer had a pointed gun at her. Ryan claimed there was no warning before he fired, which is also false,as a video showsthe officer had his gun aimed at them as they were trying to break the glass.

As of June 2022, Babbitt's family hasn't filed a lawsuit against the Capitol Police saying they would in Aug. 2021,the New York Daily News reported.

Listen to the rant below:

Continue reading here:

Ashli Babbitt's mom tells Giuliani her death would be treated better if she was a Black woman - Salon

Facebook and Google have become the de facto regulators of news and speech deciding what content people see and when.

Their dominating control over how we communicate has serious implications for Freedom of Press and our broader rights under the First Amendment.

To be sure, the First Amendment provisions on speech and press do not apply to private entities like Big Tech companies; they are only limitations placed on the government. But the Founders could not have envisioned a future in which the distribution of nearly all news and information would be controlled by two private entities: Facebook and Google.

Any time a Big Tech company removes specific posts or bans a disruptive user, the op-ed pages of the most prestigious publications and many of our Twitter timelines often focus on the implications for free speech and the spirit of the First Amendment.

However, a sorely underexamined aspect of Big Techs impact on the First Amendment is the control they have over the flow of news content, and the corresponding devastating impact on local newspapers. These companies decide what you see and whether (if at all) your local publisher gets paid for its work.

People go online all day every day to learn about the world and their communities. Local publishers report on tangible things like the ribbon cutting of a new small business or the state football championship. And they also hold politicians to account and sustain democracy.

Big Tech likes the audiences that local publishers deliver, but they dont want to pay for the journalism. Facebook and Google rake in profits by simply curating content, which is just a fancy word for the articles, photos, and videos that are the work product of real journalists doing the hard work of reporting at local newspapers.

Google and Facebooks complete dominance of the digital advertising market has also allowed them to dictate terms and enabled them to cut side deals for themselves and shortchange small and local publishers across the country.

Big Tech companies have too much economic and political power in society, especially over the news industry. No companies should have this much control over an entire industry, especially the industry responsible for keeping Americans informed.

Legislative solutions like the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA) are essential to reign in the influence of these out-of-control tech titans, revive struggling local news organizations, and protect the First Amendment.

The JCPA levels the playing field between Big Tech and small and local publishers by allowing them to collectively negotiate fair terms for using their content by Big Tech companies. The bill has also recently been refocused to exclusively benefit small and local publishers especially those that reinvest in journalists. The JCPA is also content-neutral, allowing outlets to receive their fair share from Big Tech regardless of how their opinion pages lean.

If Congress does not pass the JCPA, local newsrooms will continue to struggle to stay afloat, and Big Tech will continue to fill the void with their platforms, fueled by algorithms optimized to keep readers outraged and at each others throats. All the while, their executives and investors will continue to reap staggering profits from the economic and political disfunction they are creating.

In todays partisan political climate, it is rare for Democrats and Republicans to agree on anything but the JCPA is one important exception. We need to pass the JCPA to ensure that publishers especially small and local publishers are treated fairly and compensated justly.

Read the original:

Big Tech is Trying to Cancel Local News - newberryobserver.com

WASHINGTON United States Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Rules Committee, today delivered opening remarks at a hearing on the DISCLOSE Act, which would place additional constraints on Americans First Amendment rights.

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

Thank you, Chairwoman Klobuchar.

And thank you to all of the witnesses for joining us today.

I think we all share the goals of ensuring that our elections are transparent and fair. But these goals arent served by limiting Americans First Amendment rights, which is what the DISCLOSE Act would do.

First, this bill would require virtually any entity that engages in political speech, including non-profits, to publicly disclose the names and addresses of its significant contributors. This is a thinly veiled attempt to send the message that, if you support an organization that happens to support causes with which some disagree, you become a target for criticism, harassment, and intimidationeven if your support has nothing to do with the organizations position on a certain issue. It would fuel new frontiers of cancel culture and personalization of politics.

This tactic is not new. In 1957, in unanimously striking down an attempt to compel the NAACP to disclose its members, the Supreme Court stated that government-compelled disclosure of group affiliation violates the First Amendment. The Court recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in ones associations.

Just last year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle by holding that Californias attempt to compel non-profits to disclose donor names and addresses was unconstitutional. Noting that advocacy groups from the ACLU to Americans for Prosperity opposed Californias compelled-disclosure requirement, the Court found that it chilled speech and created a real risk of threats, violence, and harassment.

In recent weeks, weve seen how personal information can be weaponized, with groups organizing protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices, and even their childrens schools. One group is even offering bounties to anyone who sights a Justice and reports it, so that protestors can swarm that location.

For those who choose to engage in political advocacy, the DISCLOSE Act would open the floodgates to this sort of dangerous behavior.

It would require a choice between silence and harassment, and as a result, many would choose not to speak.

The First Amendment is expressly intended to prevent this sort of silencing.

The bill also creates new, unworkable, and subjective constraints on speech.

It would subject virtually any communicationby virtually any entitythat even mentions a candidate or public official, to FEC regulations and donor-disclosure requirements.

This legislation would also require speakers to declare whether communications that simply mention a federal official are made in support or opposition to the official, even if the communication is not made in support or opposition to that official. This would force inaccurate and unconstitutional declarations of allegiance.

The bill also includes oppressive new disclosure requirements in order to communicate. These include requiring non-profit entities and other groups to name in each political communication their top donors and how much money each donated to the organization. And unbelievably, it requires showing a full-screen image of the person who leads the entity that is making the communication.

All of this would infringe upon and discourage free speech. As a 2021 op-ed from two ACLU lawyers put it, We know from history that people engaged in politically charged issues become political targets and are often subject to threats of harassment or even violence.

The First Amendment is based on the principle that the remedy for speech with which you disagree is more speech, not forced silence. Our Constitution creates a free market of ideasif you disagree with someones views, the remedy is to express your own views, not to silence theirs.

Because the DISCLOSE Act promotes intimidation, rather than free speech, I cannot support this legislation.

I look forward to hearing the testimony from the witnesses joining us today.

Thank you, Chairwoman Klobuchar.

###

View original post here:

Hagerty Delivers Opening Statement at Rules Committee Hearing on the DISCLOSE Act - Senator Bill Hagerty

Nine conservative U.S. appeals court judges called Monday for the Supreme Court to overrule their colleagues and uphold a federal law that made it a crime to encourage or persuade an undocumented immigrant to remain in the United States.

Under the 1985 law, anyone who encourages or induces an unauthorized immigrant to enter or live in the U.S., knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the immigrants presence is illegal, is guilty of a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. In a case from Sacramento, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 in February that the law violates freedom of speech because it could be used against a wide range of innocent statements, like advising someone about available social or legal services.

On Monday, the appeals court said a majority of its 29 judges had rejected the governments request for a new hearing before a larger panel. Nine judges dissented and indicated the U.S. Supreme Court should take up the case and reaffirm the law.

The ruling invalidates a 70-year-old alien smuggling law, Judge Patrick Bumatay wrote, referring to an earlier version of the law. He contended the current law prohibits only criminal solicitation, not innocent encouragement, and that the court had managed to contort its scope and then imagine ways the misconstrued law might cover protected speech.

Judges Sandra Ikuta, Consuelo Callahan, Ryan Nelson, Kenneth Lee, Lawrence VanDyke, Mark Bennett and Daniel Bress signed Bumatays dissent. Judge Daniel Collins, in a separate dissent, said the court should have interpreted the law more narrowly to avoid any conflict with the First Amendment.

All the dissenters were appointed by Republican presidents, who have chosen 13 of the courts 29 active judges. The Ninth Circuit, the largest U.S. appeals court, handles federal cases from California and eight other Western states.

The case involved Helaman Hansen, who ran a Sacramento business from 2012 to 2016 falsely offering citizenship to hundreds of migrants who went through adoption ceremonies.

Hansen was convicted in 2017 of two counts of violating the law and sentenced to 20 years in prison. In its February ruling, the Ninth Circuit upheld his separate conviction for defrauding the immigrants, which also carried a 20-year sentence, but said the law that banned encouraging or inducing unauthorized migrants to stay in the U.S. was unconstitutional.

Many commonplace statements and actions could be construed as encouraging or inducing an undocumented immigrant to come to or reside in the United States, Judge Ronald Gould wrote in the 3-0 ruling.

Statements like I encourage you to stay here, or telling a tourist they are unlikely to be deported simply for overstaying a visa, are likely repeated countless times across the country every day and are protected by the First Amendment, said Gould, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. He said the law might be used legitimately to punish smuggling unauthorized immigrants or aiding their illegal entry, but not to criminalize speech that encourages them to enter or remain in the U.S.

Attorney Vera Eidelman of the American Civil Liberties Union, which took part in the challenge to the law, said the courts action Monday helps ensure that everyone can speak freely, from concerned Americans who criticize or warn about ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids to pro bono attorneys who host free legal clinics for undocumented immigrants.

But Bumatay said Monday that the terms encouraging and inducing have been interpreted by courts for centuries as complicity in the commission of a crime.

He said the ruling creates a split between federal appeals courts, often a basis for Supreme Court review. But those splits refer to rulings that a court publishes as precedents for future cases and as Gould noted Monday, the only ruling to find the law constitutional was a 2011 decision by the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., which specified that it set no future precedent. The Tenth Circuit in Denver issued a published, precedential ruling this month that found the law invalid and cited the Ninth Circuit case as authority.

Bumatays authorities for interpreting the language of the laws included the 17th-century British jurist Sir Matthew Hale, also cited by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito as a source of the reasoning in his June 24 Supreme Court decision that found no constitutional right to abortion. Hale, as commentators have noted, also endorsed a husbands right to rape his wife and sentenced three women to death for witchcraft.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @BobEgelko

Visit link:

Conservative judges urge Supreme Court to revive law making it a crime to encourage undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. - San Francisco...

In the last week, local prosecutors in Atlanta barreled ahead with their criminal investigation into the effort by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, targeting fake electors, issuing a subpoena to a member of Congress and winning a court battle forcing Rudolph W. Giuliani to testify to a grand jury.

In Washington, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack unfurled its latest batch of damning disclosures about Mr. Trump at a prime-time hearing, and directly suggested that Mr. Trump needs to be prosecuted before he destroys the countrys democracy.

The Justice Department, where the gears of justice always seem to move the slowest, was shown on Monday to be taking some steps of its own, as word emerged that two top aides to former Vice President Mike Pence had testified to a federal grand jury investigating Jan. 6 and what led up to it.

Their testimony last week came within days of Attorney General Merrick B. Garland saying that no person is above the law in this country as he fended off increasing questions about why there has been so little public action to hold Mr. Trump and his allies accountable.

There is a lot of speculation about what the Justice Department is doing, whats it not doing, what our theories are and what our theories arent, and there will continue to be that speculation, Mr. Garland said at a briefing with reporters on Wednesday as he appeared to grow slightly irritated. Thats because a central tenet of the way in which the Justice Department investigates and a central tenet of the rule of law is that we do not do our investigations in public.

The contrast between the public urgency and aggressiveness of the investigations being carried out by the Georgia prosecutors and the congressional committee on the one hand and the quiet, and apparently plodding and methodical approach being taken by the Justice Department on the other is so striking that it has become an issue for Mr. Garland even as federal prosecutors quietly grind forward on the case.

The House committee has interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, with more still coming in, and has selectively picked evidence from what it has learned to set out a seamless narrative implicating Mr. Trump. The Georgia prosecutor, Fani T. Willis, appears to be assembling a wide-ranging case that some experts say could lead to conspiracy or racketeering charges.

Even with the disclosures about the grand jury testimony of the two Pence aides, most of what is going on inside the Justice Department remains largely obscured, beyond what it prioritized in the months after the attack: its prosecution of hundreds of the rioters who stormed the Capitol and its sedition cases against the extremist groups who were present.

But through subpoenas and search warrants, the department has made clear that it is pursuing at least two related lines of inquiry that could lead to Mr. Trump.

One centers on the so-called fake electors. In that line of inquiry, prosecutors have issued subpoenas to some people who had signed up to be on the list of those purporting to be electors that pro-Trump forces wanted to use to help block certification of the Electoral College results by Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

Investigation of the fake electors scheme has fallen under Thomas Windom, a prosecutor brought in by the Justice Department last year to help bolster its efforts. Mr. Windoms team has also issued subpoenas to a wide range of characters connected to the Jan. 6 attacks, seeking information about lawyers who worked closely with Mr. Trump, including Mr. Giuliani and John Eastman, the little-known conservative lawyer who tried to help Mr. Trump find a way to block congressional certification of the election results.

It is that line of investigation that the Pence aides, Marc Short and Greg Jacob, appear to have been called before the grand jury to discuss.

Earlier rounds of subpoenas from Mr. Windom sought information about members of the executive and legislative branches who had been involved in the planning or execution of any rally or any attempt to obstruct, influence, impede or delay the certification of the 2020 election.

The other line of Justice Department inquiry centers on the effort by a Trump-era Justice Department official, Jeffrey Clark, to pressure Georgia officials not to certify the states election results by sending a letter falsely suggesting that the department had found evidence of election fraud there.

But the Justice Department has often seemed to be well behind the House committee in unearthing key evidence, most notably when Cassidy Hutchinson, a former West Wing aide under Mr. Trump, provided her inside account of Jan. 6 before she had been interviewed by federal prosecutors.

And the committee has not been shy about weaponizing its proceedings to dial up the pressure on Mr. Garland to move more aggressively, even setting out the evidence of crimes in a civil court filing related to its investigation. Its vice chairwoman, Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, said on Sunday on CNN that the committee was still considering whether to make a criminal referral to the department, a symbolic move that would only increase the pressure on the attorney general.

Mr. Garland has repeatedly emphasized that one of his primary goals is to reinforce the departments commitment, after the Trump years, to professionalism and impartiality a formulation that in the eyes of some of his critics leaves him an escape hatch from pursuing a politically explosive investigation at a time when Mr. Trump is considered a likely candidate in 2024. The questions about how urgently Mr. Garland is pursuing the investigation has frustrated Democrats and former Justice Department officials and even President Biden.

Experienced prosecutors, like Merrick Garland, are very familiar with the dynamic of outside scrutiny in high-profile cases from victims, the media and politicians, said Samuel Buell, a law professor at Duke University and a former member of the Justice Departments special task force that investigated the energy company Enron.

But whats different here is that you have a group of people in this case the committee which has the power of subpoena and they have picked out the best facts to tell a clean, one-sided, accessible story, he said.

A criminal prosecution against Mr. Trump would present a series of challenges for the Justice Department. Andrew Goldstein, one of the lead prosecutors who examined the question of whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the Russia investigation, said that based on the hearings, the criminal charge for which there is the most grist to investigate Mr. Trump is obstructing a congressional proceeding.

But bringing a case based on that charge would present a series of obstacles, because prosecutors would need to show that Mr. Trump took a specific action intended to obstruct the certification of the election and that he had intent, meaning he knew that what he was doing was wrong. Mr. Goldstein, in an interview with the New York Times podcast The Daily, said the hearings have revealed strong evidence regarding Mr. Trumps intent, but finding an action he undertook to that end would be more difficult.

For example, he said, Mr. Trumps statements to his supporters on the Ellipse before he called on them to march to the Capitol would likely be considered protected by his First Amendment rights.

Without question, what happened on Jan. 6 was horrendous for our country and for our democracy, Mr. Goldstein said. You certainly wouldnt want to look away if theres criminal wrongdoing there. But you also want to make sure that the cases that you bring are strong and are the right cases to bring.

Mr. Goldstein said that even if prosecutors are able to establish that Mr. Trump broke the law and that bringing a case could survive an appeal, Mr. Garland would ultimately have to decide whether it was in the best interest of the country to bring such a prosecution a question complicated by Mr. Trumps apparent plans to run for president again.

The considerations when youre talking about a political leader are certainly different and harder, Mr. Goldstein said, because there you have the very clear and important rule that the Department of Justice should try in every way possible not to interfere with elections, to not take steps using the criminal process that could end up affecting the political process.

Indeed, the Justice Department is bound by a series of laws, guidelines and norms that do not apply to the congressional or Georgia investigators. In addition to still being stung by criticism of its handling of the Russia case against Mr. Trump and the earlier inquiry into Hillary Clintons administration of her emails, department officials cannot legally speak about the work of grand juries and are strongly discouraged from talking, even in broad terms, about an ongoing investigation.

None of those rules apply to the congressional committee. And, unlike in a courtroom, the committee is not required to allow Mr. Trump to defend himself and can release whatever evidence it wants, including hearsay.

Congressional investigations have a history of, at times, complicating, and in one high-profile instance dooming, a Justice Department investigation.

During the House investigation into the Iran-contra scandal during the Reagan administration, it granted immunity to Lt. Col. Oliver North to convince him to testify in a nationally televised public hearing.

But years later, after the Justice Department convicted Mr. North on three felony counts, a federal appeals court threw out the charges, saying that the testimony Mr. North had given in exchange for immunity had undermined the case.

So far, theres no public evidence that Congress has granted immunity to any of the hundreds of witnesses it has interviewed.

But legal experts said that there are other ways the committees actions could complicate a prosecution. When prosecutors call a witness at trial, they want there to be few, if any, examples of the witness contradicting themselves or equivocating, as those statements have to be turned over to defense lawyers and can be used by the defense to undermine the witnesss credibility.

The committee has conducted thousands of hours of recorded depositions with Trump aides and administration officials who would likely be witnesses in a Justice Department prosecution. There are almost certainly examples on the recordings of witnesses making statements that complicate their assertions, Mr. Buell said.

Prosecutors want their witnesses testifying at trial for the first time, Mr. Buell said. This is a problem, but not a fatal problem in the way that immunity is, he said, adding that when the Justice Department considers whether to bring a high-profile prosecution, potential problems receive immense internal scrutiny.

At the Justice Department on Wednesday, a reporter pressed Mr. Garland about what he was doing to hold Mr. Trump accountable.

Mr. Garland said that the department needs to hold accountable every person who is criminally responsible for trying to overturn a legitimate election and must do it in a way filled with integrity and professionalism.

Look, no person is above the law in this country, Mr. Garland said.

A reporter interrupted Mr. Garland, saying: Even a former president?

Maybe Ill say that again, no person is above the law in this country I cant say it more clearly than that, Mr. Garland responded, adding that there is nothing preventing the department from investigating anyone who was involved in an attempt to overturn an election.

Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.

Read the original here:

Sharp Contrasts With Other Jan. 6 Inquiries Increase Pressure on Garland - The New York Times

Thousands of activists turned out Monday in Indianapolis to support and oppose a statewide ban on abortions.The Indiana General Assembly began its special session with a four-hour hearing that is set to resume Tuesday. As members of the public testified for and against a ban, the shouts of activists inside the Capitol could often be heard inside the Senate chambers."Banning abortion, even with exceptions, is a direct violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, that ensures that laws and government practice neither promote religion no interfere with its free exercise," said Rabbi Aaron Spiegel, speaking against Senate Bill 1.The legislation allows exceptions for abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or in the case of a "substantial permanent impairment of the life of the pregnant woman."That exception angered many abortion opponents, who oppose the bill because they want more restrictions."This language is so unclear, that it could be expanded to any medical condition, including mental health," said Amy Rainey, an abortion opponent. "The language does not even require a physician to document the rational or receive approval or oversight from anyone."Indiana state lawmakers are considering other legislation.Senate Bill 2 would provide $45 million for pregnancy planning, maternal health and other related services.Senate Bill 3 would provide inflation relief through various measures, such as temporarily suspending the tax on utility services and capping gasoline taxes.

Thousands of activists turned out Monday in Indianapolis to support and oppose a statewide ban on abortions.

The Indiana General Assembly began its special session with a four-hour hearing that is set to resume Tuesday. As members of the public testified for and against a ban, the shouts of activists inside the Capitol could often be heard inside the Senate chambers.

"Banning abortion, even with exceptions, is a direct violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, that ensures that laws and government practice neither promote religion no interfere with its free exercise," said Rabbi Aaron Spiegel, speaking against Senate Bill 1.

The legislation allows exceptions for abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or in the case of a "substantial permanent impairment of the life of the pregnant woman."

That exception angered many abortion opponents, who oppose the bill because they want more restrictions.

"This language is so unclear, that it could be expanded to any medical condition, including mental health," said Amy Rainey, an abortion opponent. "The language does not even require a physician to document the rational or receive approval or oversight from anyone."

Indiana state lawmakers are considering other legislation.

Senate Bill 2 would provide $45 million for pregnancy planning, maternal health and other related services.

Senate Bill 3 would provide inflation relief through various measures, such as temporarily suspending the tax on utility services and capping gasoline taxes.

Read the original here:

Thousands turn out for and against abortion ban in Indianapolis - WLKY Louisville

As questions about healthcare and religious freedom spur protests around the country, Rabbi Rachael Pass says her abortion was a sacred choice one she is faithfully fighting to help protect for others.

In 2017, as a rabbinical student in her second year, Rabbi Pass accidentally conceived on the second night of Rosh Hashanah. She took a pregnancy test to confirm her suspicions weeks later on Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan, a Jewish holiday that occurs at the beginning of every month in the Hebrew calendar, marked by the new moon.

"The very first thing that I thought to do after reading the positive pregnancy test was to say the blessing that you say after using the bathroom," Pass told Insider, describing a prayer of gratitude for good health, asher yatzar. "Like, everything about my decision was Jewish."

Pass said her religious study and rituals were central to her pregnancy, the decision to terminate, and finally her decision to have anabortion: She prayed. She consulted her own rabbi. She studied the religious texts of the Torah, Mishnah, and Talmud for any reference to abortion.

The Torah, also called Jewish Written Law, contains the five books of the Hebrew Bible and is known more commonly to non-Jews as the "Old Testament." The Mishnah is the first major work of Jewish literature and contains oral traditions and commentaries known as the "Oral Torah." The Talmud is the primary source of Jewish religious law and Jewish theology.

Jewish law does not hold the belief shared by many abortion opponents that life begins at conception. A 2015 Pew Research survey found that 83 percent of American Jews believe abortion "should be legal in all/most cases" more than any other religious group. Even in conservative readings of Jewish texts, the faith largely protects and in some cases, requires abortion. As such, many Jewish organizations have argued that extreme abortion bans are violations of their First Amendment rights to practice their religion freely.

"Bodily autonomy is extraordinarily important and is extraordinarily valued in all walks of Judaism," Pass said. "And so the fact that the Dobbs decision limits access to abortion, it really does affect Jews' First Amendment right to freedom of religion."

After much consideration, as she held four misoprostol pills in the corners of her mouth to induce her abortion, she hummed along to a liturgy streamed by Central Synagogue Services, a reform congregation in Manhattan.

After her abortion, Pass visited a cleansing Jewish ritual bath, usually visited by observant women seven days after their period, called the mikvah, and ate challah and honey a symbol of sweeter times ahead.

"The challah and honey was sort of the last piece of that ritual. I mean, really, everything about it was Jewish and it was progressive Judaism in some sense," Pass said. "But also, the more I learned and studied, the more I discovered that it was like, my decision was in line with more conservative Judaism as well."

Though Pass said Jewish people may face a unique violation of their religious freedom by the overturning of Roe v. Wade, removing choices for reproductive care concerns all people.

"My concern for Jews is the same concern that I have for every person with a uterus living in America."

Without access to abortion, Pass said, her life would look totally different. She worries about people who have lost choices for reproductive care and those whose physical and mental health will suffer under new laws.

Despite being raised in a pro-choice household and feeling both sure of her decision and believing it was the right one for her, Pass said she experienced some feelings of secrecy and shame following her abortion that she traced, in part, to a sense of pressure and internalized "Christian hegemony" from growing up in Kentucky, which is 76% Christian.

It was when she began feeling like she was keeping her abortion a secret, rather than just a private matter, that she decided it was important to begin sharing her story and wrote an essay about abortion rights for a Jewish publication.

As Pass began to share her experience, in sermons and at community events, she said the feelingsof shame were replaced by ones of purpose. She had originally been inspired to go to rabbinical school after her own rabbi counseled her in a time of need, and found she was able to pay that support forward while counseling people about abortion and faith as they make their own choices around pregnancy.

"My abortion was deeply Jewish and I'm certainly not the only one [who has had one]," Pass said. "I know plenty of other Jews who I talk to, both in my research and in my writing of my articles, and just by people I know, who have had deeply Jewish abortions as well."

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, she has felt more compelled to organize, fundraise and share her perspective that abortion can be a blessing and a choice born of great faith with others.

"I think it's really important for people to hear a rabbinic voice who chose to have an abortion," Pass said. "Not because ofa horrible medical reason, but because pregnancy wasn't right for me for a lot of other reasons."

View post:

Abortion is a Jewish right and a rabbi says hers was a blessing - Business Insider