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

Happy Monday, OnPolitics readers.

Good news out of the White House today: President Joe Biden's COVID-19 symptoms are "almost completely resolved," according to a statement released by the White House physician.

Biden, who tested positive for the virus last Thursday, is experiencing some residual nasal congestion and slight hoarseness,Kevin O'Connor, physician to the president, said.

"The president continues to tolerate treatmentwell," O'Connor said. "He will continue Paxlovidas planned. He is experiencing no shortness of breath at all."Biden completed hisfourth full day of Paxlovid, an anti-viral treatment, on Sunday.

O'Connor added that Biden'spulse, blood pressure, respiratory rate andtemperature remain "absolutely normal."

The president is continuing to work in isolation at the White House.

On Monday, Biden virtually addressedtheNational Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and later met withbusiness executives and labor leaders to push for the Senate's approval of the Chips Act, a bill to boost the semiconductor industry.

It's Amy and Chelsey with today's top stories out of Washington.

The Jan. 6 committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol hasmeticulously outlined former President Donald Trump's involvement in events leading up to and on the day of the insurrection. But are the revelationsenough for the Department of Justice to bring criminal charges against Trump and his top aides?

Though lawmakers are calling for charges against the former president and at least one federal judge said Trump and members of his team "more than likely broke the law," legal experts saythere is little evidence of an aggressive federal investigation against him.

There are also hurdles to pressing charges. For instance,Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and law professor at the University of Michigan, said the committee heard "overwhelming evidence" showing Trump was repeatedly told he lost the election and that he nonetheless pressured Vice President Mike Pence and state officials to overturn the results. Trump also knew the mob was armed when he urged supporters to go to the Capitol, according to committee testimony.

But the evidence is almost all one-sided, McQuade argued. Prosecutors would also have to anticipate how the Trump team would defend itself against the allegations.

Here, there are significant drawbacks to criminal charges, such as creating the appearance of a political motivation by DOJ, which could lead to civil unrest or even civil war," McQuade said.

Legal experts say a charge of inciting a riot or inciting an insurrection would be one of the best avenues for prosecution because the facts are not in dispute. Trump urged attendees athis "Stop the Steal" rally on the morning of the insurrectionto fight for him by marching on the Capitol.to storm the Capitol.He did not tell them to storm the Capitol.

But whether his fiery speech is protected under the First Amendment is in dispute, say legal experts.

I think the Justice Department would be somewhere in the ballpark of being able to charge the former president based on what is known publicly, said Mariotti Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor now at Thompson Coburn LLP.

Trump, DeSantis showdown over Florida: Possible frontrunners in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis both courted potential Florida voters as each spoke at different events Saturday night.

Want this news roundup in your inbox every night?Sign up for the OnPolitics newsletterhere.

What Russian President Vladimir Putin once thought of as a quick victory has transformed into a monthslong war as Ukrainian forces fend off heavy Russian artillery attacks in eastern and southern Ukraine. Sunday marked five months since Russias invasion of Ukraine began.

Western nations have condemned Putins invasion of its smaller neighbor, accusing Russia of war crimes and imposing several rounds of sanctions. Ukrainianforces are engaged in intense fighting in the Luhansk and Donetsk territories as Russia aims to gain control of the Donbas region.

Kherson, Mariupol among Ukrainian territories under Russian control: After efforts to take Ukraines capital Kyiv stalled, the Kremlin shifted its focus on the resource-rich industrial Donbas region, made up of the Luhansk and Donetsk territories.

Russian forces have made gains in southern and eastern Ukraine, including Luhansk, after Ukrainian troops retreated from the city of Sievierodonetsk.

U.S. gives more than $7 billion in aid to Ukraine: The United States has authorized more than $7 billion in military, humanitarian and security assistance to Ukraine since Russia's invasion, in addition to aid the European Union and other NATO allies have sent.

Ukraine, Russia sign deal to export grain: Ukraine, one of the world's largest exporters of wheat, and Russia signed separate agreements with Turkey and the United Nations to allow the export of Ukrainian grain, as well as Russian grain and fertilizer, stuck in Black Sea ports since the beginning of the war. Shipments of grain and other agricultural products have been halted since Russias invasion.

Don't give up on your dream home just yet : As the housing market cools, some buyers are getting a second chance to grab their first choice. -- Amy and Chelsey

See the rest here:

Jan. 6 Capitol riot: DOJ must weigh whether to charge Trump - USA TODAY

Supporters cheer as President Donald Trump addresses them during a rally on Jan. 6, 2021. A NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that a majority of respondents blame Trump for the attack on the Capitol that followed the rally, but that a slightly larger majority don't think he'll face charges. Samuel Corum/Getty Images hide caption

Supporters cheer as President Donald Trump addresses them during a rally on Jan. 6, 2021. A NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that a majority of respondents blame Trump for the attack on the Capitol that followed the rally, but that a slightly larger majority don't think he'll face charges.

Ahead of a prime-time January 6th Committee hearing Thursday, a majority of Americans are paying attention and blame former President Donald Trump for what happened that day in 2021, but don't think he will be prosecuted, according to the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

A majority of independents (55%) and 4 in 5 Democrats, but less than half of Republicans (44%), said they are paying at least some attention to the hearings.

A majority (57%) said Trump is to blame a great deal or a good amount for the Capitol riot, including 92% of Democrats and 57% of independents, but just 18% of Republicans. The 57% overall figure is up slightly and within the 4.1 percentage-point margin of error from last December (53%).

Half of respondents said they think Trump should be charged with a crime, including 9 in 10 Democrats but only 10% of Republicans. Independents are split, 49% to 46%.

Six in 10 respondents said they don't think Trump will face any charges.

There has been only some, if any, movement in people's views of what happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Half called it an insurrection and a threat to democracy, statistically unchanged from December.

A quarter, including 40% of Republicans, described it as an unfortunate event, but one in the past, so no need to worry about it anymore.

About 1 in 5, including another 40% of Republicans, said it was a political protest protected under the First Amendment.

Notably, a majority of independents (52%) now say it was an insurrection and a threat to democracy, up 9 points from December.

The hearings haven't seemed to budge Republicans' views, though. In December, just 10% said Jan. 6 was an insurrection and threat to democracy. Now it's 12% statistically unchanged.

Thursday night's hearing, which the committee says is its last, at least for now, will focus on what Trump was doing and not doing while the Capitol was under attack.

As a voting issue, the hearings don't appear to be breaking through, either.

The top issue overall continues to be inflation, which is at its highest point in decades, with Republicans and independents overwhelmingly saying so.

For Democrats, abortion is the top motivating issue right now, with the Jan. 6 hearing second, followed by guns and health care. Inflation is fifth on the list for Democrats.

These hearings don't look like a game changer for this year's midterms, with inflation continuing to be a top concern for swing voters.

But this all might be more relevant to how people vote in the next presidential election, with Trump openly talking about running again.

In this survey, Trump is still viewed highly unfavorably. Just 38% have a favorable opinion of him, and 58% have an unfavorable one.

Biden's favorability wasn't assessed in this survey, but his is marginally better than Trump's on average in other polls.

Trump, though, sees an opening against Biden, whom he sees as weak. Biden's approval rating is just 36% in this survey, his lowest in the Marist poll since taking office. That's largely because of a lack of enthusiasm among Biden's own party.

In these polarizing times, it's hard for a candidate to do well without his base fully behind him.

For all the buzz that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has gotten, he has some work to do on his name identification 33% viewed him favorably and 39% unfavorably, but 28% didn't have an opinion of him or didn't know who he was.

Former Vice President Mike Pence is also eyeing a potential run, but his ratings aren't much better than Trump's just 37% viewed him favorably and 50% unfavorably.

Meanwhile, January 6th Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney, the Republican from Wyoming, who has openly defied Trump, is viewed favorably by just 13% of Republicans, but 60% of Democrats.

She was viewed favorably overall by 34% of respondents and unfavorably by 43%, and almost a quarter weren't sure or hadn't heard of her.

The survey of 1,160 adults was conducted July 11 through 17 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. Respondents were reached using live callers via cellphone and landline.

Go here to read the rest:

A majority thinks Trump is to blame for Jan. 6 but won't face charges, poll finds - NPR