Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Find out where and how you can get vaccines and testing for COVID-19 this week, based on information provided by Joint Information Center.

Construction company Core Tech International wants the government of Guam to pay it at least $130 million and monthly rent for as long as the Guam Waterworks Authority operates the islands wastewater treatment plant in Dededo.

Core Tech also wants the Superior Court of Guam to order the payment of 42 years of back rent, plus interest, for the wastewater plant, which Core Tech alleges sits on ancestral land Core Tech acquired in 2015.

Construction work continues of the Guam Waterworks Authoritys new Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant in Dededo on Monday, Jan. 31, 2022.

According to GWA, if Core Tech wins its land case in the Superior Court of Guam, the enormous payments to Core Tech could result in higher water bills for the island.

Although GWA has argued it clearly owns the land used for the Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant, which started operating in 1980, Superior Court Judge Elyze Iriarte in November ruled that Core Tech has an ownership interest in the land and therefore can continue to pursue its claims in court.

Construction work continues of the Guam Waterworks Authoritys new Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant in Dededo on Monday, Jan. 31, 2022.

She rejected a request by the Department of Land Management and GWA to dismiss Core Techs claim.

Construction work continues on upgrades being implemented at the existing Guam Waterworks Authoritys Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant on Monday, Jan. 31, 2022.

Land Management and GWA have argued that Core Techs ownership claim is based on flawed certificates of title issued by Land Management in 2010, and that Guam law prohibits the wastewater plant site from ever being transferred to private ownership. Land Management has asked the court for permission to change and revoke those certificates of title.

Land Management and GWA in early January petitioned the Supreme Court of Guam, challenging Iriartes ruling.

The Supreme Court assigned a case number to the governments petition, but has not issued any orders or set any deadlines in connection with the petition.

Construction work continues on upgrades being implemented at the existing Guam Waterworks Authoritys Northern District Wastewater Treatment Plant on Monday, Jan. 31, 2022.

If justices agree to hear the petition, they will be asked to consider two issues: whether the five-year statute of limitations expired for Core Tech to file an inverse condemnation claim against GovGuam; and whether the Superior Court made an error when it stated Core Tech has an interest in the property, despite two public laws that prohibit the transfer of excess federal land that is being used for public easements.

The case started in December 2018, when Land Management sued Core Tech, asking the Superior Court to allow Land Management to cancel and change the certificates of title.

Core Tech counter-sued in January 2020, claiming GovGuam and GWA illegally condemned the land without paying for it and are encroaching on Core Tech property after tearing down Core Techs fences in order to expand the wastewater facility.

GWA currently is spending $122 million, provided by the military in connection with the military buildup, to upgrade the wastewater plant, including new secondary treatment facilities. Black Construction won the contract in June 2019. The wastewater plant serves residents of northern Guam and Andersen Air Force Base and also will serve the new Marine Corps base under construction in Dededo.

The federal government in 1980 gave GovGuam a lease to maintain and operate the wastewater plant, which was built on 13 acres of military land within the 862-acre Air Force communications annex.

The federal government later returned 3,213 acres of excess federal land to the government of Guam, including the communications annex.

The Guam Ancestral Lands Commission in 2006 deeded 257 acres of excess federal land to the estate of Jose Martinez Torres, including part of the communications annex.

The Torres estate in September 2007 sold 252 acres of its ancestral land to Kil Yoo Yoon for $21.4 million. Yoon in 2008 subdivided the property into eight smaller lots, and in January 2010 deeded the land to his company, Younex Enterprises Corporation.

Core Tech acquired the property in May 2015, for $178.1 million, after Younex defaulted on its mortgage with Core Tech, documents state.

According to Judge Iriarte, Core Techs ownership interest is related to that mortgage and the sale of the property to Core Tech, which resulted in Core Tech receiving a mortgagees deed.

According to Core Techs counterclaim in Superior Court, the government of Guam and GWA have used and occupied lot 10184-7 for the wastewater plant without the consent and permission of Core Tech, which amounts to an illegal taking and a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Core Tech states GovGuam and GWA failed to pay Core Tech or any prior owner for using the property, and Core Tech suffered serious severance damages to its property of at least $130 million.

Core Tech wants back rent and interest, retroactive to May 1980, with monthly rent payments until GovGuam and GWA vacate the premises.

The federal government, which owned the land for decades, including when it was an Air Force communications annex, still has an interest in the Dededo property, according to the U.S. Attorneys Office, which stated only a federal judge can decide cases related to federal land ownership.

The United States has a particular interest in the resolution of this case because Core Techs counterclaims threaten to adversely impact the chain of real estate title under which the United States reserved a reversionary interest in real estate if not used for public benefit, specifically a wastewater treatment plant that serves U.S. facilities at Andersen Air Force Base and Marine Corps Camp Blaz, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mikel Schwab told the Superior Court last August.

Even if the property on which the plant sits is no longer owned by GovGuam, it is at a minimum encumbered by the federal lease and easements that allow GWA to operate the plant, Schwab stated. If defendants wish to challenge the United States interests in and title to real property they must bring an action in federal district court.

See original here:
Core Tech wants at least $130M and rent in government land dispute - Guam Pacific Daily News

By Zachary Cohen, Annie Grayer and Ryan Nobles, CNN

CNN Talks between former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and the House select committee investigating January 6 remain on ice nearly two months after the panel gave him a second chance to appear or face possible contempt charges.

Clark has not heard from the committee since his deposition was delayed in early December but still expects to invoke the Fifth Amendment when that meeting takes place, a source familiar with the situation tells CNN.

The committee moved late last year to hold Clark in contempt of Congress for defying his subpoena but then gave him another opportunity to meet with House investigators. That deposition then was postponed because of a "medical condition" that prevented him from participating.

The committee has been tight-lipped about any plans related to Clark since mid-December, but another source familiar with the investigation tells CNN they expect his appearance to be rescheduled very soon.

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson told reporters last week that the panel has not yet rescheduled Clark's deposition because "he's still sick."

"He's had some challenges, and we're just working through them," the Mississippi Democrat added.

Committee members have consistently said they consider the former Justice Department official a key witness and have stressed the importance of having him sit for an interview, even if he won't answer their questions.

As a sympathizer to election fraud conspiracy theories, Clark became then-President Donald Trump's most useful asset inside the Justice Department in the days before January 6, 2021.

Clark pushed to pursue unfounded claims of voter fraud in the weeks after the November 2020 election. And, according to officials who interacted with Clark, he was in touch with Trump repeatedly.

The-CNN-Wire & 2022 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

See more here:
Talks between January 6 committee and former DOJ official, a key witness, remain on ice - WRAL.com

Two lawsuits could bring significant changes to Traverse City in 2022 and beyond, including a new federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a city charter amendment requiring a public vote on buildings over 60 feet tall and litigation surrounding recreational marijuana rules. The Ticker looks at the latest updates in both cases and the potential impacts they could have on Traverse City in the months ahead.

Building HeightsFollowing a November ruling in which Judge Thomas Power determined that all components of new buildings must be under 60 feet in Traverse City to avoid triggering a public election a change in previous city precedent that excluded features like elevator shafts and staircases from counting toward building height city staff issued a cease-and-desist order to developer Tom McIntyre for his Peninsula Place building under construction on State Street. City Attorney Lauren Trible-Laucht determined the building which is planned to be under 60 feet as historically defined by the city, but with elevator shafts and stairwells exceeding that height had not yet substantially progressed in construction and thus falls under Powers ruling. Now, McIntyre has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging the citys decision, as well as the constitutionality of the city charter amendment adopted in 2016 that requires a public vote on buildings over 60 feet.

McIntyre tells The Ticker that he had obtained proper city permits, began significant site preparation and foundation work, and invested more than $1.8 million into Peninsula Place when Power made his ruling in a separate building case in November. Trible-Laucht says that like unlike other city projects under construction, such as Commongrounds on Eighth Street, Peninsula Place was not far enough along to be grandfathered in and must adhere to Powers decision to keep all building features under 60 feet. McIntyre and his legal team vigorously oppose that interpretation. We don't think our situation (falls under Powers ruling), but the city attorney was firm in her decision, he says. It presents a huge problem to us if they stand by that decision, so hopefully we can get this resolved fairly quickly.

McIntyres development company, 326 Land Company, is not only challenging the citys cease-and-desist order but the city charter amendment requiring a public vote on buildings over 60 feet. The lawsuit alleges that the charter amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects citizens from laws which have no relation to a proper governmental purpose, and from the Fifth Amendment, which protects private property rights. The complaint says the citys actions represent an unlawful and unconstitutional taking of private property rights and could have a devasting financial impact on Peninsula Place, with McIntyre estimating he stands to lose over $7 million if he is forced to redesign the building to meet the new height guidelines. In order to keep moving ahead with construction, McIntyre submitted new design plans to the city that comply with Powers order, but also indicated hes reserving the right to build the project as originally planned should the courts rule in his favor. Since itll likely be a year before Peninsula Place reaches the contested height range, McIntyre is hopeful the lawsuit will be resolved before the building is completed.

Attorney Jay Zelenock, who represents the group Save Our Downtown which advocated for the passage of the charter amendment and was the plaintiff in the recent case before Power says the group may very well seek to intervene in the new federal lawsuit to defend the charter amendment alongside the city. Since McIntyre previously lost a Thirteenth Circuit Court case in which he sought to overturn the charter amendment, as well as a state appeal due to lack of standing, Zelenock is skeptical the developers efforts in federal court will be successful.

A litigant isnt entitled to two bites at the apple, Zelenock tells The Ticker by email. The federal courts are not appellate courts for the state court system. So, any claim that (McIntyre) claims to have will have to be a new claim based on allegedly new unlawful/lawless conduct by the city or its employees that somehow arose after the (previous) judgment. Seems unlikely. For McIntyres part, though his complaint seeks to overturn the charter amendment, the developer says his primary goal with the case is just to try and build the building weve been working on for the last five years.

Recreational MarijuanaCould 2022 be the year Traverse City residents can finally buy recreational marijuana within city limits? City commissioners and staff say they want to see it happen, with a new ordinance likely coming before the commission for approval in February or March, but litigation posing the threat for more delays.

The city was previously barred by Thirteenth Circuit Court from adopting any form of adult-use ordinance, thanks to a lawsuit brought by multiple dispensaries over the initial recreational marijuana plan created by commissioners in 2020. That plan would have allowed four adult-use dispensaries to operate within city limits a rule medical dispensaries argued would doom those not lucky enough to score one of the four recreational licenses. Power recently sided with the city on part of the lawsuit, saying the city has the right to limit the number of recreational permits. Mike DiLaura chief of corporate operations and general counsel for SecureCann, which does business as House of Dank and is one of the plaintiffs says the group has appealed that decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals. We believe its pretty clear in state law that if you have preexisting medical stores, they are in essence grandfathered in (to co-locate and receive a recreational license), he says. There should be a linear path for all these existing stores to get licenses.

That case could take months to resolve, but in the meantime, city commissioners could move ahead to approve a new recreational ordinance. Power ruled that the city needs to rewrite its scoring rubric that outlines how recreational applicants will be graded and awarded licenses. Mayor Pro Tem Amy Shamroe, who sits on an ad hoc committee of commissioners working on the recreational ordinance, says the committee will likely meet in February to finalize a recommendation on the new scoring rubric, along with how many licenses should be allowed in the city and in what zoning districts. The recommended ordinance would then come to all commissioners for approval. Most city commissioners have expressed support for allowing recreational sales in the city as soon as adequate regulations can be approved and legal challenges resolved. That includes new commissioners, with Commissioner Mark Wilson telling The Ticker hes in full support of recreational sales within the city limits and Commissioner Mi Stanley saying its up to the city to move forward in a sensible, responsible way for our community so that recreational sales dont continue to be an unresolved issue for the city.

Shamroe says shed likely support allowing more licenses than the four the city was considering previously possibly 8-10 but says simply allowing unlimited licenses in the city isnt a smart move considering the property rush that accompanied medical stores and the possibility for other types of businesses to be pushed out or sites to sit vacant. We have to be careful, because in the end Traverse City can only support so many stores and we dont want a bunch of empty storefronts, she says.

DiLaura, however, says that any scenario that potentially boxes out existing medical stores from obtaining recreational licenses will likely result in more lawsuits. If they allowed the existing 12 (medical dispensaries) to be grandfathered in, and then offered an additional two, three, or four licenses in a geographically diverse area as a pathway for new entrants into the marketplace, that would be a win-win, he says. Those are the big stakeholders. Without extending recreational licenses to existing medical dispensaries, DiLaura says the city is creating an existential crisis for those businesses who will end up suing to fight to stay alive.

City Attorney Trible-Laucht says that no matter what ordinance the city passes, more litigation is likely inevitable, as recreational marijuana is a new industry generating lawsuits all over the state. I think the only thing we can count on with this topic is more lawsuits, she says. The city commission is doing everything they can to be really thoughtful and move the issue forward in the way they think the public wants. Well just have to deal with the lawsuits as they come.

Originally posted here:
City Lawsuit Updates: What's Next For Building Heights, Recreational Marijuana? - Traverse City Ticker

Summary

The other plot against American democracy; Trump allies plead the Fifth before January 6 committee; Alex Jones pleaded the Fifth almost 100 times; Trump administration policies favored the wealthy

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:00:00]

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Thanks for spending with me tonight. As we learned, if they tell you, don`t look up, consider looking up.

That does it for us. THE REIDOUT with Joy Reid though starts right now. Hi, Joy?

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: How are you doing, Ari? Wise words indeed, thank you very much. Have a fantastic evening. Cheers.

Good evening, everyone. Okay. We begin THE REIDOUT tonight with a history lesson starring Major General Smedley Butler. Now he may be a little known name outside of military circles, but don`t let that fool you. This is a marine with a big military resume, starting with the war against Spain in 1898. He was twice awarded the Medal of Honor, Hollywood loved him, so did Theodore Roosevelt who called him the ideal American soldier.

But the story we`re going to tell didn`t happen in a conflict overseas but rather in Pennsylvania, where, one day, a bond salesman approached butler with a pitch. Imagine, half a million veterans marching on Washington, a move financed by some of the most powerful corporations in America. The purpose, to stop President Franklin D. Roosevelt`s new deal opposed, which was opposed by wealthy business leaders as a socialist doctrine. This army of veterans would pressure the president to hand over executive powers of government, and if the president refused, he will be forced to resign.

The bond salesman after, you know, casually pitching the violent overthrow of the U.S. government then asked butler if he would be interested in heading this march, to which General Butler replied, my one hobby is maintaining a democracy. If you get these 5,000 soldiers advocating anything of smelling of fascism, I am going to get 5,000 more and lick the hell out of you and we will have a real war right at home.

The general then reported this exchange to the government and here he is revealing the so-called business plot before a panel of the special House committee on unAmerican activities.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before the professional committee, the highest representation of the American people under subpoena to tell what I knew of activities, which I believe might lead to an attempt to set up a fascist dictatorship. The plan that`s outlined to me was to form an organization of veterans to use as a bluff or as a club at least to intimidate the government and break down our democratic institution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: The panel, the media, the American public did not take this exchange as seriously as Butler did. No one was ever prosecuted or even punished. The allegations turned into one big joke, an elaborate scheme by the super rich to topple the U.S. government for their own financial interest, impossible, right?

What Major General Butler did for American democracy was certainly heroic, whether people at the time believed him or not. He was also far from the perfect hero. He would even call himself a racketeer for capitalism. Jonathan Katz, who wrote about Butler in his new book, outlines how butler blazed a path for the U.S. empire, helping seize the Philippines and land for the Panama Canal, invading and helping plunder Honduras and Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and more. Meaning he played a heavy hand in all that yucky stuff that isn`t taught in schools or in museums or in movies. America as empire tends to sell fewer tickets.

But perhaps it was those layers and contradictions that allowed Butler to see what this pitch was about, an alleged political conspiracy to overthrow President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and install a fascist government in his place.

Fast forward almost nine decades and we`ve now witnessed another attempted coup led by a man who simply couldn`t admit that he lost an election and whose movement of Trumpism was created and funded and sustained by big business. That populist bit, that was just a sham and just like in 1934, we`re seeing a similar pattern of denialism and deflection when it comes to what we`re up against. Dozens of witnesses and participants in the January 6th insurrection have stonewalled the select committee and several who have testified still refuse to answer questions.

Most recently, the right-wing fake news host Alex Jones revealed that he pleaded his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination nearly 100 times during an interview on Monday. John Eastman, the notorious Trump lawyer who literally put the plan for a coup in writing also claimed his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as a response to nearly 150 questions and to document and to his document subpoena, according to a lawyer, for the House who spoke to CNN.

But in contrast, with the alleged fascist plot of 1934, we are seeing modicum of accountability when it comes to the MAGA mob who served as Trump`s boots on the ground on January 6th. Just today, Stewart Rhodes and nine of his Oath Keepers cohorts pleaded not guilty to charges of seditious conspiracy.

[19:05:05]

They are among more than 700 who have been charged in connection with this current insurrection.

Joining me now is Malcolm Nance, MSNBC Counterterrorism and Intelligence Analyst, and the author of the upcoming book, They Want to Kill Americans, the Militias, Terrorists and the Deranged Ideology of the Trump insurgency, and Jonathan Katz, aforementioned author of the Racket Newsletter and of the new book, Gangsters of Capitalism, Smedley Butler, the Marines, the Making and Breaking of America`s Empire.

I want to start with you, Jonathan Katz. I so enjoyed this incredible long read about Smedley Butler, what a name, first of all. Talk a little bit about this plot that we`ve sort outlined going in here, as you`ve researched this, how real was this attempt? How serious were they? And who were some of the sort of big business and corporate interests behind it?

JONATHAN KATZ, AUTHOR, GANGSTERS OF CAPITALISM: So, what we know is basically what Butler testified in front of Congress in November 1934, and that is that a representative of a prominent Wall Street financial institution came to him and tried to enlist him in this plot. We can be pretty sure that the guy who approached him thought that there was a fascist coup behind him that he was trying to foment.

In my research, I can tell you that his boss, a guy named Grayson M. P. Murphy, had a long intelligence background. He had been involved in over throwing governments overseas. He was certainly the kind of person who might have been involved in this.

Beyond that, all we have is the idea that the representative of this brokerage, a guy named Gerald C. MacGuire told Butler that there were going to be big names coming to support it from behind the scenes and that those names would include people like the Duponts, Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors, the McCann Eric Ad Agency, Phillips Oil, Sun Oil, places like that. What we don`t know is how involved they were and to what extent the planning went forward before Butler was approached and then came forward --

REID: And we know something called the Liberty League was ultimately formed. And it was the same industrialists and wealthy people that didn`t like the idea of having a new deal because they tagged it as socialism, right? They`re saying it`s socialism and we`d rather have fascism than that.

KATZ: Yes. In 1934, much as in 2022, a lot of people thought that liberal democracy was on the way out and that the only ways forward were either fascism or communism. And to the business elite in America, fascism seemed like the more attractive of those two options. So, we don`t know again whether any of the big names that Jerry MacGuire said were going to be coming behind this were actually behind it to what degree they were.

But we do know a number of people who were members of the Liberty League, including the head of JPMorgan was a big fan of Mussolini, he said that he considered himself somewhat of a missionary for the Italian fascist. We know that the Hugh Johnson, who was part of the new deal administration, who was also mooted as somebody who was going to be involved in the business plot, he also was a committed admirer of Mussolini and European fascism.

And we know that the guy who approached Smedley Butler, Jerr MacGuire, he had been on a tour of the fascist hot spots of Europe and met with members of one of the real antecedents to January 6th in February of 1934, there was a fascist and far-right riot in Paris to storm the parliament to prevent the handover of power to a center left prime minister, which there are a lot of ties between that and January 6th. And we know MacGuire met with members of the (INAUDIBLE), which were maybe sort of the Oath Keepers of Paris, 1934.

So, there was a lot to say that there would have been support for a coup like this if it had pushed forward, at least in terms of the people that MacGuire was saying we`re behind it. We just don`t know the extent to which this planning had gone forward in large part because Congress cut the investigation short.

REID: Yes. There`s a lot of lessons to be learned here, Malcolm, one of which is that big industrial interests will sometimes mesh with our military`s missions. And I think it`s something we don`t like to talk about, right, because we want to portray America and American military as always the good guys, and I actually am a great admirer of the American military.

[19:10:02]

I happen to be.

But, I mean, in a lot of ways, our history is a history of empire and it`s something we don`t talk about a lot. Do you think it`s something we need to start to face because, I don`t know, there are risks there, and right now, we`re seeing sort of paramilitary, military people participating in another attempted coup, at least a small number of them?

MALCOLM NANCE, MSNBC COUNTERTERRORISM AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: : I seem to recall this guy who was supreme allies commander of all forces in Europe in World War II who successfully landed in Europe and on a crusade took the entire place book as a rapid anti-fascist named Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he became president of the United States. And if I`m not mistaken, he warned of this very thing, that war was a racket and that corporations by the mid-1950s were now using the United States government as their way of surviving.

And so I think that for someone with as much experience in the greatest period of economic development and reengineering, don`t forget, we`ve changed refrigerators into tanks, right, refrigerator companies were doing pistols, Remington Ranch started making rifles, that we should pay attention to that.

Now, are we ever going to stop this? That`s not going to happen any time soon. We have far greater problems going on right now in the engineering of our democracy. And interesting thing, I`m a fan of Smedley Butler. I actually have Smedley Butler memorabilia in my man cave because his statement about the plot of 1932 was almost precisely what in better, more rough terms, what General Milley said last year about the Armed Forces of the United States not getting involved in politics.

We are revolving around this and the big question is will the American public actually be awake this November to put a stop to this or are we just going to sleepwalk our way into fascism?

REID: Let me play you something. Because I think for a lot of Americans, you hear conservatives throwing around terms like Marxism and socialism a lot, to mean a lot of things, which generally don`t have much to do with actual socialism and Marxism and communism, as they are practiced around the world. They generally just mean policies that help poor people and people of color, and they don`t like them. Let me just play a montage of that going over the years and over the decades.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The cold war we face today is the child of the new deal rendezvoused with communism.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They established the prerequisites to a socialistic or even later a communistic state.

RONALD REAGAN, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: One of the traditional methods of imposing statism of socialism on our people has been by way of medicine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This group who came by a state and who led these demonstrations and who are present here, many of them belong to the communist organizations.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have people in Washington who want to take us into socialism.

FMR. SEN. BOB DOLE (R-KS): Public housing is one of the last bastions of socialism in the world.

FMR. REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI): Switching these programs, and this is where I`m talking about health care as well, from a third party or socialist base system.

FMR. GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK): Now is not the time to experiment with socialism.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: The Democrats used to be normal people. Now, they`re socialists, Marxists, communists.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

REID: With the last little bit of time we have left, Malcolm, we have a president, Donald Trump, who sort of styled himself as a populist but whose policies overwhelmingly benefitted the wealthy and high corporate interest. And then we have an attempted coup by people who want him to stay in forever, right? They want the deregulation of oil and gas, who want increased military spending to go on forever, who want more right-wing justices, who are basically corporatists, who side with big business 70 percent of the time.

It`s hard for me to see much difference between that and what Mr. Katz wrote about, that you do have very wealthy interests who have a great interest in having a fake, populous movement that`s willing to go to war to keep their guy in power, doing those things to help the rich forever, no?

NANCE: Would have been -- yes. Well, would have been Benito Mussolini, when he termed the phrase, fascist, defined it as, right, a dictatorship of the corporate right. That is the literal definition of what fascism was. Adolf Hitler was supported by the largest corporations in Germany, right, and right up to the point where the Wannsee Conference had these major corporations sitting there, figuring out what kind of furnaces they could make to burn X number of bodies per day so that they could have a final solution, so the problem of the Jews in Europe, right? And we held them accountable at Nuremberg for the most part. But many of those corporations are in operation today.

[19:15:01]

Again, Dwight D. Eisenhower made it clear that when there is money to be made, there is going to be an interest of perpetual, whether it`s warfare or the propping up of fascism. The only difference of what we have today and what all those quotes that you had from Ronald Reagan and all of the rest, I would have thrown in the quote from Major General Jack D. Ripper in Stanley Kubrick`s famous film about atomic war, you know, where he said -- where he thought there was conspiracy of putting fluoride in there. Well, that`s QAnon in the Republican Party today, with people in the military.

REID: And, by the way, Reagan was talking about Medicare in that rant.

Jonathan Katz, I have to tell you, this thing was an excellent read. I hope everyone goes out and buys your book, man. It was fantastic. I hope everyone reads it. Malcolm Nance, my friend, I appreciate you. Everybody out there, follow the money. Think about who is funding and paying for and profiteering and profiting off of what we`re seeing happening or what happened last January. Think about it. It`s worth doing. Thank you all very much.

Up next on THE REIDOUT, Trump pleaded with Georgia officials to steal the votes that he needed to win the state. We heard the tape. So, what happens next in Fulton County`s grand jury investigation?

Democrats scoring major victories over egregious Republican gerrymandering, but how free and fair will the next election actually be?

Arizona Democrats send a loud and clear message to Kyrsten Sinema, continue to obstruct the Biden agenda at your own peril, political peril. The state party chairwoman joins me.

And tonight`s absolute worst says email me but he doesn`t want to chat, he`s looking for dirt on your kids` teachers.

And, hey, guess what? I`m going to be on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert tonight. It is going to be a lot of fun. Please tune in tonight.

THE REIDOUT continues after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:21:10]

REID: The January 6 Select Committee is not the only investigation into Donald Trump that is picking up steam.

A panel of judges in Georgia has given the green light to Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis to seat a special grand jury for her investigation into Trump`s attempts to overturn the election results in that state.

Now, we all remember Trump`s notorious phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger a year ago.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

REID: Now, just to be clear, President Biden won Georgia. And that was further verified by not one, but two statewide recounts and a partial forensic audit overseen by Raffensperger.

"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution" reports that DA Willis is also examining the abrupt resignation of former Atlanta-based U.S. attorney B.J. Pak, a November 2020 call on -- a November 2020 call Senator Lindsey Graham place to Raffensperger, and false claims made by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani during a hearing before the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee.

And now, with the power of a special grand jury, Willis has the right to subpoena witnesses and to provide -- to provide documents and testimony, which is key because she has said that many witnesses have refused to fully cooperate, including Secretary of State Raffensperger.

Joining me now is Maya Wiley, former assistant U.S. attorney, and Peter Strzok, former FBI counterintelligence agent and author of "Compromised: Counterintelligence and the Threat of Donald J. Trump."

Thank you both for being here.

And welcome to the show, Peter.

But I`m going to start with you, Maya.

Here are the potential laws that were broken in this whole scheme. And I`ll just put them up on screen, everything from criminal solicitation to racketeering.

As you look at it, although Raffensperger is trying to dismiss it, how differently will this investigation go now that there`s a grand jury involved? And can they indeed compel, up to including -- and including Raffensperger and Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump to testify?

MAYA WILEY, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the short answer is, the fact that it`s a grand jury means exactly, that they can compel their testimony before the grand jury.

And, as we know, Raffensperger himself has already said, look, I will -- I will go in and talk if I`m subpoenaed.

And I would suspect we`re going to see very few people pulling a Roger Stone and -- or any -- or a Steve Bannon, and calling the bluff of a district attorney with an impaneled grand jury, because that carries its own penalties.

The there thing is, what do they have to gain? I mean, they have already made public statements. There`s so much that`s already in the public record about all the efforts to both privately press and publicly cajole and virtually threaten so many of these Georgia officials who themselves were Republicans, are Republicans, into doing exactly what Donald Trump wanted them to do, and Donald Trump personally calling them.

He personally called many Georgia officials. And that, in and of itself, makes it, I think, very difficult for them to sort of say, I`m not going to talk about what`s been talked about publicly and which I myself have talked about publicly because a grand jury subpoenaed me.

Very hard to imagine.

REID: Yes.

And, Peter, there`s a certain doing the crimes out in the open sort of quality to it, the shamelessness of it, and the fact that Donald Trump and Lindsey Graham were just openly making phone calls, trying to urge the secretary of state to overturn a legitimate election.

Does the shamelessness, the openness of it, let`s say you`re -- you put yourself in an investigator`s role. And you have been the -- you have you have taken the brunt of it. You know how these folks are.

[19:25:04]

Does doing it in the open, as an investigator, indicate guilt or just a lack of knowledge that what you`re doing is illegal?

PETER STRZOK, FORMER FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AGENT: Well, I certainly think it indicates a brazenness and probably a lack of sophistication or care about what they were doing.

You can say you`re doing something and have the only intent in the world to do something that`s wrong. What`s really interesting to me is, Georgia is part of a pattern. When you talk about things being in the open, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, today talked about that DOJ was looking at all these states with these alternate electors that had slates that were sent into the National Archives.

Many of those people said straight open to the media as it was going on: Yes, we`re doing it.

So, again, just because people are talking about it doesn`t mean that they weren`t breaking the law. It just means that they were either dumb and/or they didn`t care, because those two things aren`t exclusive to each other.

REID: Well, and then Lisa Monaco, and you just talked about that. And I did want to get into that with you.

And it is the first time that the Justice Department has actually commented on what they`re doing in a probe that actually is significant to January 6.

And I guess that would be the question. Let`s say that somebody is planning something like this. The fact that they`re talking about it openly, the fact that people put their names down and said, I`m an elector, knowing they`re not an elector, is that fraud? Is it racketeering? Like, how do you even investigate something that people are admitting?

Read the original here:
Transcript: The ReidOut, 1/25/22 - MSNBC

Getty Images

The 22 civil cases pending against Deshaun Watson, which a pre-trade deadline effort to settle all of them failed to accomplish, proceed through the so-called discovery phase. Tony Buzbee, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, recently discovered something interesting.

In a statement released to Mark Berman of Fox 26 in Houston, Buzbee claims that a witness who allegedly worked closely with the Texans and coordinated massage sessions for Watson repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination while testifying.

That witness spent the entire hour of the deposition asserting her Fifth Amendment privilige [sic], Buzbee said. Indeed, she wouldnt even admit that she knew Deshaun Watson.

The witness isnt named. An excerpt of the transcript was provided to Berman.

Questions that prompted the invocation of the Fifth Amendment included, for example, whether the witness knew Watson had a fetish to go to a massage and then try to convince the unsuspecting therapist to have sex with him.

Watson can be questioned under oath after the Super Bowl. Buzbee said 13 of the 22 plaintiffs already have been questioned under oath by Watsons legal team, which is led by Rusty Hardin.

A grand jury has been investigated whether Watsons alleged misconduct violates any relevant criminal laws. Watson remains under contract to the Texans. They surely would like to trade him. The unresolved legal issue continues to be an impediment to any trade and, in turn, to the resumption of his career. Watson didnt play at all in 2021.

Read more from the original source:
Witness in Deshaun Watson cases repeatedly invokes the Fifth Amendment - NBC Sports

Former professor and Trump lawyer John Eastman, who spoke to a crowd of supporters at the Stop the Steal rally on 6 January, has invoked his constitutional protection rights against self-incrimination nearly 150 times, according to reports.

Dr Eastman is among a number of those in Trumps circle who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, after receiving subpoenas relating to the insurrection on 6 January. According to CNN, Dr Eastman refused to answer questions 146 times.

Dr Eastman has a more than reasonable fear that any statements he makes pursuant to this subpoena will be used in an attempt to mount a criminal investigation against him, Mr Eastmans lawyer, Charles Burnham, told the 6 January committee in a letter on Wednesday. However, a federal judge on Monday ordered Dr Eastman to respond to another committee subpoena one sent to his former employer, Chapman University.

With his lawyer, Dr Eastman has worked to try and block Chapman University from handing over approximately 19,000 emails to the committee. The new order means the 6 January committee will likely gain access to the information it needs.

Mr Trump has previously said pleading the Fifth Amendment is comparable to mob behaviour. As a political candidate in 2016, he said: "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" Around the same time, Hillary Clinton used the defence in regards to her private email server. "The mob takes the Fifth, added Mr Trump.

Dr Eastman met Mr Trump and Vice President Mike Pence on 3 January in the lead up to the "Stop the Steal" rally, at which he spoke to a Washington DC crowd of approximately 10,000 people.

We know there was fraud, and dead people voted, claimed Dr Eastman of the 2020 presidential election, while next to another former Trump attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who has also recently been subpoenaed.

Mr Giuliani called for trial by combatat the rally. He has since denied inciting violence, claiming his remark was in reference to the fictional show Game of Thrones. Mr Giulianis lawyers have said the remark was clearly hyperbolic and not literal.

The 6 January Committee has issued more than 60 subpoenas to seek: Facts about the planning, coordination, and funding of events that preceded the violent attack on our democracy, said Mississippi Representative and Chairman of the Committee Bennie Thompson in a statement.

Those who have received subpoenas include Trumps former advisor Stephen Bannon, his former chief of staff Mark Meadows and Trump's son Eric among others.

The Capitol was attacked on 6 January after a Trump rally. If you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore, said Mr Trump in a rally speech. Five people lost their lives as a result of the insurrection.

Visit link:
Trump lawyer pleaded the fifth on 146 Capitol riot questions - The Independent

Right-wing radio host Alex Jones on Tuesday claimed to have followed through with his plan to invoke theFifth Amendment during his deposition with the House Select Committeeinvestigating Jan. 6, 2021, saying he hepled the Fifth "almost 100 times."

Speaking on his radio show, Jones said the remote deposition was "interesting" and characterized the questions that were asked as "pretty reasonable."

"And I wanted to answer the questions. But at the same time, it's a good thing I didn't," Jones said, according to NBC News.

According to Jones, his lawyer "told me almost 100 times today during the interrogation, 'on advice of counsel I am asserting my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.'"

"And the media tells you that's because you're guilty, or because you're going to incriminate yourself but it's also just because it can be used to try to incriminate you and twist something against you," he added.

The Hill has reached out to the Jan. 6 committee for comment.

The panelsubpoenaed Jones, along with others,in November, seeking information about therallies and march on the Capitol that proceeded the attack on the building that day.Jones spoke at rallies on both Jan. 5 and 6and facilitated a donation to provide what he described as 80 percent of the funding for the rally near the White House on Jan. 6.

Chairman Bennie ThompsonBennie Gordon ThompsonFormer chairman of Wisconsin GOP party signals he will comply with Jan. 6 committee subpoena Jan. 6 panel subpoenas 14 involved in false electors scheme Jan. 6 panel's subpoena furthers complications for Rudy Giuliani, DOJ MORE (D-Miss.) said in a statement at the time that the committee believed Jones and other subpoenaed witnesses had "relevant information" on the events that led up to the deadly Capitol attack.

Mr. Jones has repeatedly promoted unsupported allegations of election fraud, including encouraging individuals to attend the Ellipse rally on January 6th and implying he had knowledge about the plans of the former President with respect to the rally, the committee said.

In December, Jones filed a lawsuit against the panel and House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better Let's 'reimagine' political corruption Briahna Joy Gray discusses Pelosi's 2022 re-election announcement MORE (D-Calif.) in an effort to stop them from requiring his testimony and obtaining his phone records. In his lawsuit, Jones informed the committee of his plans of invoking the Fifth Amendment and of raising First Amendment objections when the panels asked about "constitutionally protected political and journalistic activity."

Read this article:
Alex Jones says he invoked Fifth Amendment 'almost 100 times' before Jan. 6 panel | TheHill - The Hill

OPINION:

Bidens unmanned killer drone strikes continue abroad (Web, Jan. 26) reminds us that in 1776, with pens and muskets, private-sector Founders and patriots created government to secure each individuals unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In 1791 representatives from the private sector amended their government with the Fifth Amendment in order to allow a simple majority of the Supreme Court to opine that due process was followed allowing life, liberty, or property to be infringed upon until impotent. In 1868 representatives revised their government using the Fourteenth Amendment to restrict each state but allowing a simple majority of the Supreme Court to infringe upon rights without limit.

A fundamental feature of socialist governments, whether Communist or Fascist, is totalitarian rule by whoever controls a simple majority of government (e.g., a nations omnipotent court).

Do we need to revise the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to require a unanimous opinion before the Supreme Court declares due process was followed and infringes upon unalienable rights to the point of impotence?

JOE BOYETT

Montgomery, Al.

Continued here:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Don't allow totalitarian rule - Washington Times

[Follow live coverage of the civil rights trial against three ex-police officers in the killing of George Floyd.]

ST. PAUL, Minn. Derek Chauvin is not on trial anymore. He is serving a long prison sentence after being convicted last year of murder, and has pleaded guilty to federal crimes for the killing of George Floyd.

But his presence will be felt throughout the federal trial of the three officers who were with him when he murdered Mr. Floyd.

Two of the officers are charged with not intervening against Mr. Chauvin, the senior officer on the scene, as he used excessive force. All three of the officers are charged with not providing medical aid to Mr. Floyd, a duty police officers have under the law. Each of the defendants are expected to place the blame for Mr. Floyds death solely on Mr. Chauvin.

The excruciating bystander video lasting more than nine minutes that captured Mr. Floyds death, as he gasped for air under Mr. Chauvins knee, will be shown on monitors in the courtroom, as it was during the state trial. The expression on Mr. Chauvins face, his seeming indifference as Mr. Floyd begged not be killed, will be seen by the jury. (This time, though, the trial will not be televised, as federal rules prohibit cameras in the court, thus sparing the wider community the trauma of watching the video over and over again on television.)

During jury selection on Thursday, Judge Paul A. Magnuson stressed multiple times to prospective jurors that they must disregard anything they know about Mr. Chauvins convictions or guilty plea.

The crimes that Mr. Chauvin pled guilty to are totally separate to those at issue here, he said.

Mr. Chauvin could be called to testify, although experts say that is a remote possibility. In his federal plea agreement, Mr. Chauvin acknowledged that he was aided and abetted by other officers and that he had never pressured the other officers to disregard department policies that require officers to intervene against colleagues when they use excessive force.

But most lawyers who have been following the case say it would be too risky for the prosecution to call him to the stand, because it could draw attention away from the defendants actions and give the defense a chance to cross-examine him and help them make a case that Mr. Chauvin was the only one who committed crimes.

And while the defense could theoretically call Mr. Chauvin as a witness, the Department of Justice structured his plea agreement to prevent this possibility. Because Mr. Chauvin has not been sentenced yet for his federal guilty plea, he maintains his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which he could invoke on the stand if the defense were to call him.

Here is the original post:
Derek Chauvin Was Convicted of George Floyds Murder. Could He Now Testify? - The New York Times

The five men accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer have lost their bid to have the case dismissed, clearing the way for the prosecution to move to trial.

The defendants had argued that they were pushed into the alleged conspiracy by confidential informants and their FBI handlers in what amounted to egregious overreach on the part of the government and a textbook example of entrapment.

In a ruling on Tuesday, however, Judge Robert A. Jonker rejected that notion, stating that the defendants fail to carry their burden of showing indisputable evidence of entrapment before trial. It is exceedingly rare for cases to be dismissed in this manner, Jonker noted, saying that the question of entrapment is decidedly disputed as it almost inevitably is at this stage of the case and instead should be determined by a jury.

As a result of his denial, the case against the five federal defendants can now proceed to trial starting March 8, where the increasingly bitter disagreements between prosecutors and defense attorneys over matters of fact can be decided.

Attorneys for the five defendants in the federal case, which also includes weapons of mass destruction and weapons charges, could not be reached for comment, although some had previously indicated they did not expect their dismissal motion to prevail. A sixth man, Ty Garbin, previously pleaded guilty in the matter and is expected to testify on the governments behalf. Eight other men are charged with related crimes in Michigan state court.

The sharp differences of opinion in the courtroom have spilled into the public arena, where the high-profile case has taken on ever-greater significance among those who see the defendants as exemplars of the rising threat of domestic terrorism on one side and, on the other, those who characterize the prosecution and FBI as agents of a deep state intent on crushing dissent. And that political froth, in turn, has begun flowing back into the legal arena.

Earlier this month, for example, the attorney for defendant Kaleb Franks asked permission to raise questions at trial about the role of the FBI in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurgency, pointing specifically to allegations made by Sen. Ted Cruz and journalist Glenn Greenwald about whether undercover assets were secretly responsible for the events of that day.

The fact remains: legislators are demanding accountability from the FBI, the attorney, Scott Graham, wrote, drawing parallels to the alleged misconduct of the bureau in the Michigan case.

In a response to that motion filed Tuesday, prosecutors responded caustically, calling Jan. 6 irrelevant to their case and disparaging the attempt to put the FBI on trial, and ask the jury to decide this case on the basis of inflammatory and irrelevant partisan debate and the media coverage of it.

The government also scoffed at a demand from the defense to grant immunity to a number of potential witnesses at trial, including three FBI agents and an informant, so that they may testify freely about the case without feeling compelled to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

In recent months, the Justice Department said it would not call three of the principal FBI agents from the investigation to testify in the wake of allegations related to possible misconduct on their part. Nonetheless, prosecutors wrote late on Monday, none of those agents will invoke the Fifth Amendment if called by defense attorneys as witnesses.

Stephen Robeson, a confidential informant at the center of the probe, is another story, the government attorneys noted. Earlier this month they described him as a double agent and in their Monday filing said he might plausibly invoke the Fifth if called because of a series of potentially illegal actions on his part, including aiding and abetting the defendants, and conspiring with them to kidnap the Governor.

Specifically, they said that Robeson deliberately didnt tell his FBI handlers about a recording of suspects; that he called defendant Barry Croft on the day of the arrests in the case to warn him he was wanted by the government; and that he tried to destroy recordings and other possible evidence, including a rifle fitted with a projectile launcher that he instructed someone to throw in a lake.

That conduct is in addition to a firearm charge Robeson was indicted for in federal court last March and for which he later pleaded guilty, and a fraud charge he currently faces in Wisconsin state court. The conduct alleged in both of those cases took place while Robeson was working as a paid FBI informant.

If defendants call Robeson as a trial witness, prosecutors said, they will refuse to grant him immunity, out of concern that could falsely testify that he deliberately attempted to entrap the five men accused in the conspiracy. If that were to happen, they added, the government would have no recourse but to try Steve for perjury.

Regardless of whether Robeson or the three FBI agents are called as witnesses at trial, the defenses primary endeavor will be to convince the jury their clients were entrapped by a government desperate to make a case.

To do that, Jonker emphasized in his ruling, theyll have to not only prove that the government induced or persuaded the defendants to act using excessive pressure, but also, critically, demonstrate that the five men were not predisposed to violence.

And that second prong may be a particularly tall order given the extensive library of incendiary rhetoric prosecutors have documented in the hundreds of hours of clandestine recordings made by the FBIs informants in the case.

It is neither undisputed nor patently clear that defendants were not predisposed to commit the crimes charged," Jonker wrote in his opinion.

See the article here:
The Men Accused Of Plotting To Kidnap Michigans Governor Have Lost Their Bid To Avoid Trial - BuzzFeed News