Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Before US vice president Mike Pence could certify the Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021 the last ceremonial step before president-elect Joe Biden was to be sworn in rioters breached the US Capitol.

Outside the chamber doors, a rioter was shot and police officers were beaten and bloodied. Chants of Hang Mike Pence rang through the halls.

Earlier that day, then-president Donald Trump chastised Mr Pence for not going along with his pleas to stop the certification.

You cant do this. I dont want to be your friend any more. I made you. Your career is over, Mr Trump said, as documented in Bob Woodwards book Peril.

Now the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, the US House of Representatives panel investigating the events surrounding the insurrection, wants to hear from the former vice president.

Mr Pence's former chief of staff, Marc Short, is already co-operating with investigators, who have called more than 340 witnesses.

The committee's work is ongoing, with its investigative teams focused on funding, motivations, organisational coalitions and how Mr Trump threatened politicians and election officials, such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Although they cannot arrest or bring charges against people, their discovery may be used to shape new legislation. For example, in October 2021, committee members began drafting a bill designed to clarify the procedures for certifying presidential elections.

The committee's findings may also be used in arguments to hold people legally accountable.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed seven Democrats and two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, with Bennie Thompson serving as committee chairman.

Adam Schiff of California and Jamie Raskin of Maryland are two of the better-known Democrats on the committee.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy warned Mr Kinzinger and Ms Cheney they would be stripped of all other committee assignments if they accepted membership on the panel.

Mr Kinzinger told Forbes: When you've got people who say crazy stuff and you're not going to make that threat, but you make that threat to truth-tellers, you've lost any credibility.

First gentleman Douglas Emhoff, Vice President Kamala Harris, US President Joe Biden and wife Jill Biden salute the crowd after their electoral victory on November 7, 2020. Outgoing president Donald Trump has yet to concede his loss.AFP

July 2021

The committee hears evidence from four police officers who were on the front line as rioters attacked the Capitol.

They include Daniel Hodges, an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, who was crushed in a doorway between rioters and a police line.

Michael Fanone, a Metropolitan Police Department officer, says rioters pulled him into the crowd, beat him with a flagpole, stole his badge, repeatedly shocked him with his Taser and went for his gun.

Mr Fanone says he supports the creation of the January 6 commission and criticises those who played down the attack.

August 2021

Committee investigators say they will seek phone records of members of Congress, the records of at least 30 members of Mr Trump's inner circle from seven government agencies and the White House communication records held by the National Archives.

Records from social media companies such as Twitter, Parler, Facebook and TikTok are also sought.

September 2021

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, chief adviser Steve Bannon and Kash Patel, Pentagon official and aide to former House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes, receive subpoenas from the committee.

Donald Trump, the president at the time, speaks during a rally protesting the electoral college certification of Joe Biden as president in Washington on January 6, 2021. AP

October 2021

The committee issues subpoenas to Stop the Steal LLC organiser Ali Alexander and assistant attorney general Jeffrey Clark.

Mr Trump says he will defy requests for information from the committee by asserting executive privilege and files a lawsuit against the National Archives, stating that the records request was illegal, unfounded, and overbroad and amounted to a fishing expedition.

Documents requested include phone logs, communications with Mr Meadows and others as well as White House visitor records.

The same month, Mr Bannon claims that Mr Trumps executive privilege also protects him from being compelled to appear as the former president instructed him to defy the subpoena.

The committee announces that it will hold Mr Bannon in contempt.

Former Trump director of strategic communications Alyssa Farah, who told CNN that Mr Trump had lied about the election results, complies with the committees interview request, as does former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen.

November 2021

Mr Clark claims attorney-client privilege and refuses to appear.

Meanwhile, the committee wants to know what happened at Washingtons historic Willard Hotel, known as the war room, where Trump associates reportedly met to formulate plans to stop the January 6 certification.

Subpoenas are issued for InfoWars host Alex Jones, long-time Republican operative Roger Stone, former senior adviser for policy Stephen Miller, Mike Pence's national security adviser Keith Kellogg, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, lawyer John Eastman, and Bernard Kerik, a Trump ally who took part in the Willard Hotel meetings.

A 'war room' reportedly set up in a luxury Washington hotel by advisers of former president Donald Trump has become the focus of the congressional investigation into the violent January 6 attack on the US Capitol. AFP

Warrants are issued for the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, along with Robert Patrick Lewis, chairman of the 1st Amendment Praetorian.

Federal judge Tanya Chutkan denies Mr Trump's October request to seal archived documents, writing in a 39-page ruling that he appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power 'exists in perpetuity'".

But presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president.

Mr Trump appeals against the ruling and, after he is again denied, he takes his case to the Supreme Court.

Mr Bannon surrenders to the FBI.

December 2021

The committee votes unanimously to hold Mr Clark in contempt of Congress.

Mr Meadows stops co-operating and sues Ms Pelosi and the committee. The House votes in favour of holding him in contempt.

A committee report reveals that Mr Meadows sent an email on January 5 promising that the National Guard would protect pro-Trump people.

Ms Cheney reads aloud texts Mr Meadows traded with the former president and others on and around January 6, indicating that Mr Trump may have committed a felony by obstructing the electoral certification proceedings.

Mr Stone pleads his Fifth Amendment rights and refuses to answer questions.

January 2022

The committee says they have all emails exchanged between Mr Meadows and Fox News host Sean Hannity and have also asked Hannity to comply with requests to speak.

One notable January 6 insurrectionist co-operating with the committee is former Olympic gold medallist, swimmer Klete Keller, who pleaded guilty to obstruction.

Kellers plea deal includes a co-operation agreement and prosecutors say that he is already providing useful information.

He was in the Capitol building at a crucial hour, said assistant US attorney Troy Edwards.

Apart from his co-operating with the government investigation, he potentially has an opportunity to aid the government in a trial that has been set [about people] around him that day.

Updated: January 13th 2022, 11:21 PM

Go here to read the rest:
What has the January 6 committee done so far? - The National

Tucker Carlson asks why Congress and investigators did not interview the Capitol Hill police officer that killed Ashli Babbitt on January 6, 2021, on Wednesday's broadcast of his Fox News program.TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: In an investigation of a shooting death, any shooting death the first step is always to speak to the person who pulled the trigger. That's not always possible, obviously but it is always the goal. Every time. Naturally, everyone assumed that would happen in the case of Michael Byrd, he's the one who killed an unarmed woman called Ashli Babbitt without warning in the Capitol last January 6th. Byrd is a senior Capitol Hill police officer. He has a documented and a public history of dangerous and reckless behavior with a firearm. So obviously, investigators would interview Michael Byrd as they tried to determine whether actually Babbitt's killing was justified. No one doubted that. But today we learn that never happened. According to officials in the Washington, D.C. police department, Byrd was never interviewed by investigators. Byrd never gave a statement about what he had done. It all comes from a shocking new piece in RealClear Investigations that reveals Byrd did not even invoke his Fifth Amendment right to silence. The FBI And D.C. Police just didn't talk to him. Apparently, they didn't want to. They didn't want the details.

And this left Michael Byrd free to conduct his own personal publicity tour which he promptly did with the collusion of an anchor on "NBC News." Watch:

LESTER HOLT, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: When you fired what could you see? Where were you aiming?

MICHAEL BYRD, CAPITOL HILL POLICE: You taught to aim for center mass. The subject was sideways, and I could not see her full-motion of her hands or anything. So I guess her movement, you know, caused the discharge to fall where it did.

HOLT: And what did you think the individual was doing at that moment?

BYRD: She was posing a threat to the United States House of Representatives.

CARLSON: How exactly was she posing a threat? In the interview, Byrd paints himself as the victim of the killing. Here's the key line: I could not see her full hands or anything, Byrd says. He doesn't explain why he shot Babbitt to death.

Legally, that's a damning statement. It's the kind of fact that would have caused serious problems for House Democrats if someone had bothered to ask Michael Byrd questions under oath because you're not allowed to kill unarmed women for trespassing in the United States no matter who they voted for. You've got to have a good reason to take life in America. Byrd did not have a good reason but neither Democrats or Republicans seem to care more than a year later. Both sides praise Michael Byrd as a hero. Byrd is now commander for the security of House of Representatives just so you now how that works.

Read more here:
Tucker Carlson: Why Didn't Investigators Interview Capitol Hill Police Officer That Killed Ashli Babbitt? - RealClearPolitics

Although hemp-based food products have been present in the market in India for several years, all products were previously regulated under the Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) in the country as the local food authority Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had not set any standards for hemp locally.

This situation took a positive turn late last year when FSSAI finally issued a gazette notification to include regulations governing hemp seeds and seed products under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Fifth Amendment Regulations, 2021, marking the first time hemp products have been recognised as food in the country.

[Hemp] seeds, hemp seed oil and hemp seed flour shall be sold as food or used as an ingredient in a food for sale subject to conforming to [FSSAI-defined] standards, [including adhering to specified] THC and cannabidiol (CBD) limits, said FSSAI via the notification.

The food for sale that consists of hemp seed or seed products shall not be labelled or otherwise presented for sale in a form which expressly or by implication suggests that the product has a psychoactive effect [and] labels shall not include nutrient content claims about CBD, health claims about CBD or an image or representation of any part of the Cannabis plant (including the leaf of that plant) other than the seed.

The words cannabis, marijuana or words of similar meaning may not be used on the label, [although] the word Hemp may be included.

The local hemp industry received this news with a warm welcome, calling this decision a rewarding and significant one.

This is a significant step towards recognizing the hemp plant and the nutritional benefits of the hemp seed - With this regulation in place, FSSAI has come out with guidelinesthat will help the Indian hemp industry flourishand also be at par for exports to othercountries, one of Indias largest hemp firms Health Horizons Founder and CEO Rohit Shah told FoodNavigator-Asia.

This move will push the billion-dollar hemp opportunityin India much faster moving forward we expect to see a 10x growth for the industry fuelled by the regulatory progress.

Shah explained that the main difference between being regulated under AYUSH as an ayurvedic product and under FSSAI as a food product lies in the ease of doing business with its target market and being recognised as a food item for regular consumption.

Theres nothing bigger than these regulations for the industry, as FSSAIs recognition of hemp seeds as food means that trade and business becomes super easy for us [within the food sector and to be recognised as food products], said Shah.

This also paves the way for more value-added products made from hemp such as protein bars or flavoured powders to enter the market as food items, [and we believe] that many such products are on the way catering to the Indian habit of regular snacking.

When we spoke to Shah earlier in 2021, Health Horizons had just launched what it claimed to be the countrys first second-generation hemp products a protein bar and a chocolate powder, and also he also stated that the hemp industry would see no industry left untouched.

I still believe that every product is going to have a hemp variant now [that the regulations allow for it], he said.

Hemp butter, hemp pastas, hemp chocolates, toothpaste with hemp seed oil, hemp breads and more Consumers will soon not just have the option to buy these in stores, but likely also to order hemp-based foods in to-go restaurants soon.

Shah believes that the shift towards plant-based diets is one of the major consumer trends in India that will drive the hemp market forward, as will rising health consciousness.

Indian consumers are becoming more consciouswith their eating habits, particularly since COVID-19 hit where we have seen a massive shit towards plant-based diets, he said.

This development [in combination with] a shift in mindset by young Indian consumers to increasingly question and research products before theybuy or use [also means that] they are more likely to buy something healthy which ignites their taste buds rather than junk foodto consume.

As such, the hemp industry is going to grow at an unparalleled scale over the next decade, and the new regulation means better industry organisation [which will drive this even further].

The rest is here:
'Unparalleled growth and innovation': Indian hemp industry ready for lift-off as regulatory landscape improves - FoodNavigator-Asia.com

Hey everyone, Christina Williams here with Just Criminal Law. It's all we do.

Today, I'd like to share with you the first of a series of videos called Is That Constitutional?

This is fascinating stuff and one of my favorite topics.

We'll be covering the First Amendment right to free speech, and how big business really can control the narrative of what we hear in the news and what we see on social media.

We will also cover the Second Amendment and your right to self-defense.

Interestingly enough, some of my ads on social media related to this right have been censored.

So, if we're lucky and I word it correctly, maybe this video won't be taken down.

Also, there's a lot to talk about related to your Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

Sometimes the government illegally searches your car, your home, your cell phone, or even your own body.

That's right; they can obtain DNA or your blood, breath, or urine without your consent.

And, of course, we have the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That is your right to remain silent.

A lot of people think if you exercise this right, you must be guilty. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All of these wonderful privileges were given to us in the Bill of Rights, and no one right is more important than the others.

There are three important reasons you should never talk to the police.

Reason number 1, nothing you say will be used to help prove your innocence. The police and the prosecutor get to cherry-pick which part of your statement they will use. So, if an officer asks you about anything other than giving him your license, registration, and proof of insurance,you can simply, politely say I do not wish to discuss my day with you.

Reason number 2 you should never talk to the police If the police want to talk to you about more than just the reason they came into contact with you or the reason they stopped you,that is your speeding violation or your turn signal violation, it's because they believe you've done something more to break the law.

In all my years as a defense attorney, I've never seen someone talk their way out of getting arrested if the police believe they have some evidence of guilt. And keep in mind, the evidence that the police have has not been tested, and we don't know if it's reliable.

Reason number 3, if you're being questioned by the police, keep in mind, they are going to ask you questions, sometimes for a very long time, before they place you under arrest.

And when they place you under arrest is when they finally read you your rights, that is your right to remain silent, your reminder that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, and remind you of your right to an attorney. It's kind of a gotcha moment, but it's too late, so keep in mind, it's important to use that Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Unfortunately, too many Americans view the Fifth Amendment Right as a shelter for wrongdoers. If you invoke it, you must be guilty of something. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

Here at Just Criminal Law, we know you really only get one shot at justice, one opportunity to make sure your rights are protected.

If you're being questioned by the police, ask for an attorney and schedule a free initial consultation with us by clicking the link associated with this video.

Read the original here:
Is that Constitutional? Fifth Amendment - County 17

A 21-year-old Chicago man accused of stealing several items from a Thorntons Gas Station was charged with resisting arrest after refusing to comply with a police officer early on the morning of Dec. 16.

Forest Park police were directed to the alleged thief who was walking away from the gas station in the 600 block of Harlem Avenue just before 2 a.m. The suspect was taken to the ground by officers after allegedly ignoring multiple commands to stop.

Once he was handcuffed, the man was combative. When asked for his name and date of birth, the man replied Fifth Amendment numerous times. None of the items allegedly stolen from the gas station were located in the mans possession.

A fingerprint analysis at the Forest Park Police Department revealed the mans identity. He was charged with resisting a police officer.

This information was obtained from police reports filed by the Forest Park Police Department. Unless otherwise indicated, anybody named in these reports has only been charged with a crime. These cases have not been adjudicated.

Original post:
Alleged thief tries 'Fifth Amendment' with cops - Forest Park Review

The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.

(Reuters) - A Chicago attorney who sued a Texas doctor under that state's controversial abortion law, and who is trying to dismiss that lawsuit, is facing a potential three-year suspension after Illinois officials said he sent threatening and harassing emails to lawyers at law firms Barnes & Thornburg and Fox Rothschild.

A three-person hearing board of the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission on Friday said Felipe Gomez sent other lawyers in multiple cases insulting emails and accused them of violating federal law.

The board cited an April 2019 email from Gomez to Steve Badger, an Indianapolis partner at Barnes & Thornburg, that said the firm and one of its partners are "are scum of the Earth and need to be abated."

Register

"His language caused the recipients of his emails to feel embarrassed, harassed, and fearful for their safety," the board said. Gomez harassed seven attorneys, the board found.

The board said Gomez denied engaging in misconduct and asserted his statements were protected by the First Amendment in a filing. Reached for comment, Gomez said he hadn't looked at the board's recommendation but noted the board didn't ask for his disbarment.

The Illinois Supreme Court suspended Gomez on an interim basis in April 2021.

In September, he sued a San Antonio doctor under a provision of the Texas abortion law, also known as Senate Bill 8, that deputizes private citizens to bring civil complaints against abortion providers and those who aid or abet abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy.

Gomez is a critic of the law. In his lawsuit against Dr. Alan Braid, he said the law was "illegal as written" and asked the court to declare it unconstitutional.

Gomez in December moved to dismiss his Bexar County state court lawsuit against Braid. However, a spokesperson for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Braid, said the court has not accepted his motion.

The hearing board's suspension recommendation focused on emails and voicemails Gomez sent in 2018 and 2019 to opposing counsel in different cases.

Gomez told Trace Schmeltz, the co-chair of Barnes & Thornburg's financial and regulatory litigation group, in an April 2019 email to "Resign and plea to FBI and i [sic] dont name and flay you on a public pillory for all to see so as to discourage scum like yourself."

Badger and Schmeltz in a joint statement said they were "grateful for the hearing boards careful consideration of the matter."

The board said Gomez, who represented himself at an August hearing before it, at one point threatened to sue a witness and then refused to testify, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The board said it does not think Gomez "recognizes his behavior was wrongful or intends to reform his communications in the future." However, the board said the evidence did not warrant Gomez's disbarment.

Read More:

Who would sue a doctor over the Texas abortion law? These guys.

Register

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

David Thomas reports on the business of law, including law firm strategy, hiring, mergers and litigation. He is based out of Chicago. He can be reached at d.thomas@thomsonreuters.com and on Twitter @DaveThomas5150.

Read the original here:
Lawyer who sued Texas abortion provider faces 3-year suspension - Reuters

LYNN HAVEN Asentencing hearing scheduled for Friday in the case of former Lynn Haven City Commissioner Antonius Barneshas been pushed back to a date followingthe federal criminal trial of former Mayor Margo Anderson and prominent businessman James Finch.

"The trial may produce information that is relevant for this court to consider at Barnes' sentencing," the motion to continue the hearing said.

Where it started: Lynn Haven mayor and city attorney each charged with more than 60 federal crimes

More: Former Lynn Haven city attorney faces 20 years after pleading guilty to corruption charges

Maintained innocence since the beginning: Indicted Bay County developer James Finch denies charges in Lynn Haven corruption case

Barnes is now scheduled to be sentenced April 29 for making false statements to a federally insured institution. The trial of Anderson and Finch, both of whom facemultiple charges related to a conspiracyto deprive the citizens of Lynn Haven of honest services, is scheduled to start Feb. 28.

The postponement of the Barnes hearingleaves former Lynn Haven City Attorney Adam Albritton next up to face sentencing from among seven city employees or local business people who have admitted to stealing from Lynn Haven and FEMA following Hurricane Michael.

As of Thursday, Albritton remained on the court docket for sentencing Wednesday. No motions had as yet been filed to continue his case, though he was indicted last March alongside Barnes, Anderson and Finch.

The others who have pleaded guilty, former City Manager Michael White, former Community Services Director David Horton, business owners David White and Joshua Anderson and David White's sister and bookkeeper Shannon Rodriguez, are scheduled for sentencing March 17.

Albritton was originally charged in August 2020 alongside Anderson,with more than 60 crimes.

More charges were added against Albritton and Anderson in March 2021 when a new indictment came down adding Finch, owner of Phoenix Construction, and Barnes to the list of alleged criminal conspirators.

The single count of wirefraud to which Albritton pleaded stems from his contracting with David White and his company, Erosion Control Specialist, to have $25,000 in debris removal and other work done at his home and the home of his girlfriend following Hurricane Michael.

Documents state the specific illegal transaction took place when White deposited a city check he was written after he'd turned in afalsified invoice that claimedhis company had been doing federally funded debris removal work on public property. The work had actually been done atAlbritton's home and the home of his girlfriend.

Albritton committed honest services fraud when he schemed with David White and others to draft a supplemental agreement to a contract between ECS and Lynn Haven that gave the company the ability to bill the city for garbage pickup that was never performed.

In return for his illegal activity on behalf of ECS, Albritton received regular cash kickbacks of $10,000 or $20,000.

He faces up to 20 years in prison.

When he is finally sentenced, Barnes will face up to 30 years in federal prisonfor making false statements to a federally insured institution. A Statement of Facts filed in the casestates Barneslied about his indebtedness and financial history to obtain a $23,681 loan from Innovations Federal Credit Union.

In exchange for the plea, which was tendered Oct. 8, the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to drop six other charges against Barnes, which primarily centered on his acceptance of multiple "loans" fromFinchthat he was never obligated to repay.

Both Barnes and Albritton were ordered, as part of their plea agreements, to state under oath their intention to cooperate or not cooperate in the federal government's ongoing prosecutions. Those statements are not available for public review.

While seven of the alleged co-conspirators have now pleaded guilty to the crimes filed against them and await sentencing, Anderson and Finch have vigorously fought the charges they face.

Authorities accuse Anderson of using her authority as mayor to steer lucrative construction contracts to Finch's company and in exchange receivedbribes in the form of travel and a mobile home at no cost.

In a motion to dismiss, Anderson states she "was the whistleblower that brought the suspicious Erosion Control Specialist payments to law enforcement."

Like Anderson, Finch has filed a motion to dismiss the charges he faces with prejudice, which would allow them to collect attorneys fees. Finch claims prosecutorial misconduct and violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

The Fifth Amendment protects defendants from self-incrimination and prevents a person from being tried more than once for the same crime.The Sixth Amendment provides for a speedy trial before an impartial jury.

Prosecutors have filed a response to the Anderson and Finch motions that remains under seal and unavailable for public scrutiny.

Michael and David White, who are not related, were, along with Horton, Rodriguez and Anderson, no relation to the former mayor,the first to be indicted by federal authorities in the Lynn Haven corruption case. Charges were originally filed in November of 2019.

Michael White and David White each pleaded guilty to four of the 35 charges they originally faced and will be sentenced for conspiracy to defraud, two counts of wire fraud and attempting to defraud the federal government.

Rodriguez has pleaded guilty to two charges, conspiring to defraud and wire fraud.

Anderson and Horton each pleaded guilty to wire fraud.

Court documents filed in the case indicate that at least some of those originally charged have been cooperating with authorities as they continue to build their case against Anderson and Finch.

Read the original post:
Sentencing hearing postponed for former Lynn Haven commissioner in federal corruption case - The News Herald

WASHINGTON Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming marked the first anniversary of the mob attack on the Capitol by charging fellow Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas with dereliction of duty.

Cheney has called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to prosecute all who were responsible for the massive insurrection aimed at denying the legitimate election of President Joe Biden. Yet Cruz has rushed to the forefront of the defense of former President Donald Trump, as the bulk of the Grand Old Party continues to roll over to his dominance of the party faithful, who overwhelmingly embrace his lie that the 2020 election was rigged against him.

Cruz apparently believes he can position himself as the Republican heir to Trump in the party, should the Democrats succeed in derailing Trumps open efforts to restore himself to the Oval Office in 2024. Biden has already said he intends to seek reelection then, assuming his current good health continues.

The former president was poised to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the January 6 insurrection with a massive campaign rally. But he suddenly canceled it as some Republican backers expressed fears it might backfire against him among Democratic voters.

The House select committee investigating the insurrection has already held Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and political strategist Steve Bannon in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to testify. The select committee has obtained a reported 9,000 pages documenting conversations Trump has conducted with them and other Trump organization figures.

One other longtime Trump apologist, Roger Stone, also has been subpoenaed but has invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, having obtained a presidential pardon from Trump. But a Democratic member of the select committee, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, has been a relentless pursuer of criminal charges against Trump, saying it is certainly possible they will be filed.

The current Republican ring of support around Trump is reminiscent of his second impeachment, held in Congress shortly after he left office a year ago. The central objective of that effort was to convict Trump and thereby bar him from future office. Despite widespread revulsion at the insurrection and clear evidence of Trumps dereliction of duty, the vast majority of House Republicans voted against the articles of impeachment, and only seven Senate Republicans voted to convict. Lacking a supermajority, the attempt to hold Trump accountable failed.

This time around, Congress is taking the necessary time and care to circumvent privilege claims by Trump administration officials in its efforts to collect evidence, and its possible the committee will make referrals to the Justice Department for prosecution.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, has arrested at least 725 participants in the insurrection, and some 165 have pleaded guilty, most to misdemeanors. This apparent concentration on low-level participants has frustrated many who wish to see the organizers of the attack speedily prosecuted and punished, although the DOJ appears to some observers to be building conspiracy cases that reach to the highest circles around Trump and perhaps even the ex-president himself.

We know much more now than a year ago about how Trump sought to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to violate the Constitution by denying certification to the rightful president-elect, Joe Biden. We know much more about how high-ranking Republicans assisted him. What is not yet clear is whether Trump and his cronies can be convicted of criminal acts.

Whatever the investigations uncover and achieve, voters should be forewarned of the grave danger they will put American democracy in if they give the disgraced former president a second crack at steering the republic.

Editors note: Jules Witcovers latest book is The American Vice Presidency: From Irrelevance to Power, published by Smithsonian Books. You can respond to this column at juleswitcovercomcast.net.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Go here to see the original:
One year after insurrection, Cruz and others celebrate it - Marquette Mining Journal

Cadet Christopher J. Morgan died from injuries sustained in a military vehicle accident June 7, 2019, at the U.S. Military Academys training area. Ladonies P. Strong, a U.S. soldier imprisoned on a negligent homicide charge in Morgans death, is appealing her conviction on grounds that a military panels nonunanimous guilty verdict violated her constitutional rights. (U.S. Military Academy)

A U.S. soldier who is serving prison time for her role in the death of a West Point cadet is appealing her negligent homicide conviction on the grounds that a military panels nonunanimous guilty verdict violated her constitutional rights.

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday granted a request by attorneys for Ladonies P. Strong, a staff sergeant who was demoted to private after her 2020 conviction. The case will be heard starting Feb. 10.

The hearing could be the first chance for a military court to weigh in on a growing debate in the legal community over the militarys longstanding practice of allowing guilty verdicts with just three-fourths of a panel voting to convict.

In July 2020, Strong was sentenced to three years of confinement over a crash in New York that killed Christopher J. Morgan and injured more than 20 others.

Strong was driving a military truck en route to a training exercise near West Point when her vehicle overturned. Morgan died at the scene. In addition to imprisonment, a military panel ordered the demotion and a bad-conduct discharge.

Attorneys for Strong contend that an April 2020 Supreme Court ruling that deemed split jury verdicts unconstitutional should be grounds for overturning her court-martial conviction.

Strongs appeal comes after a separate ruling Monday by a military judge in Kaiserslautern, Germany, who said prosecutors will need a unanimous guilty verdict to convict an officer standing trial on sexual assault charges.

The judge, Col. Charles Pritchard, made waves in the legal community with his ruling, which held that allowing split verdicts encroaches on service members Fifth Amendment due process rights.

Pritchard said there is no rational basis for Congress different treatment of U.S. service members and civilians regarding the requirement of unanimity of a jury for conviction.

Army prosecutors are now seeking to overturn that ruling, and the trial of Lt. Col. Andrew Dial, originally slated to start Monday in Kaiserslautern, has been delayed to give them a chance to appeal.

In Strongs case, attorneys appear to be appealing on different grounds, arguing that Sixth Amendment protections that make an impartial jury and a unanimous guilty verdict obligatory in state and federal courts should apply to troops.

Because constitutional rights identified by the Supreme Court generally apply to service members, unanimous convictions also should be mandatory in military courts, Strongs legal team argued.

Defense attorney Mickey S. Williams, an expert on military law at the legal firm Capovilla and Williams, said Strongs Sixth Amendment argument could be on shaky legal ground compared with Dials, which centers on the Fifth Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana made clear that juries must reach unanimous guilty verdicts in federal and state criminal trials.

One reason Williams sees Strongs argument as problematic is that decisions made by higher courts must be followed by lower courts, he said.

Therefore, Strong is arguing for a decision that appears to go against the Supreme Courts ruling on Sixth Amendment jury requirements that dont apply to military courts.

Pritchard, in his ruling in the Dial case, also questioned a challenge on Sixth Amendment grounds, saying the Supreme Court neither explicitly nor implicitly overruled precedent on the inapplicability in courts-martial of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

For that reason, Pritchard said, his court is bound by precedent established by superior courts.

Regardless, the challenge to split verdicts appears to have only just begun.

Whats at stake is whether service members, who defend the Constitution, will be granted the same rights that the Constitution guarantees everyone else, Williams said. There is no persuasive argument why a military court-martial should not require unanimous guilty verdicts.

Read more:
Appeal by soldier convicted for her role in death of West Point cadet adds to legal groundswell against split guilty verdicts - Stars and Stripes

Tom Blong letter| Abilene

This letter is in response to the op-ed piece by John Powell (Reporter-News, Dec. 4).

More: 'Because we can' doesn't make it right

The argument for abortion is very similar to the argument for slavery.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case of 1859 ruled that slaves were property and, under the Fifth Amendment, had no legal rights and their owners could do with them as they wanted.

The argument in Roe v.Wade uses a similar argument that the unborn child is property of the mother, who has the right to do whatever she wishes to it.

If you equate the womb to a plantation, you can see the similarities.

As a believer, it is my belief that life of a person starts at conception and, therefore, taking of this life is murder, as much as hanging of a slave is murder.

The John Powells of this world would have applauded the ruling of 1859.

Tom Blong, Abilene

More here:
Tom Blong letter: Similarities of abortion and slavery - Abilene Reporter-News