Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

Guest Post by Samuel F. Ernst, Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law.

Can you register a famous persons name as your trademark without their consent? The Lanham Act seems to say no, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office interprets this to mean no, never, no matter what. 15 U.S.C. 1052(c) provides, in pertinent part, that the PTO must deny federal registration to a trademark if it [c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular individual except by his written consent. Unlike registration denials under Section 1052(a), the PTO denies registration without any inquiry into whether the mark suggests a false connection between the mark and the famous person. Nor does the PTO inquire into whether the famous person also sells the goods or services in question, as it does with private individuals under Section 1052(c). Rather, with respect to celebrities and world famous political figures, registration is denied based solely on the determinations that (1) the public would recognize and understand the mark as identifying a particular living individual; and (2) the record does not contain the famous persons consent to register the mark.[1] Under this provision, the PTO routinely denies registration to marks that appear calculated to capitalize on the famous persons name to sell products. For example, the PTO denied registration under Section 1052(c) to ROYAL KATE as applied to watches, cufflinks, jewelry, and other luxury products based solely on the determination that ROYAL KATE identifies Kate Middleton whose identity is renowned.[2] Id. And the PTO denied registration to OBAMA PAJAMA in connection with pajamas based on the examining attorneys excellent job marshalling a variety of press excerpts to demonstrate the obvious namely, that President Barack Obama is extremely well known.[3]

But the PTO also denies registration to marks under this provision even if they constitute political commentary, parody, or other public discourse at the heart of the First Amendment. For example, in 2020 the PTO denied registration to the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL in connection with T-shirts, even though the applicant argued that the mark was political commentary about presidential candidate and president Donald Trump that the relevant consumer in the United States would not understand to be sponsored by, endorsed by, or affiliated with Donald Trump.[4] In particular, the mark is political commentary about [Trumps] refutation at the March 3, 2016 Republican debate of presidential candidate Marco Rubios insinuation that Donald Trump has a small penis; and is also political commentary about the smallness of Donald Trumps overall approach to governing as President of the United States.[5] The applicant appealed the PTABs denial to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is now deciding whether Section 1052(c) is unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment,[6] as that court and the Supreme Court have already decided with respect to the provisions in the Lanham Act barring registration of scandalous, immoral, or disparaging marks.[7]

Unlike the bars on registration at issue in Tam and Brunetti, the PTOs ban on registration under Section 1052(c) does not discriminate against speech based on the viewpoint expressed. Rather, the PTO bars registration whether the mark praises, criticizes, ridicules, parodies, or is neutral toward the famous person. Nonetheless, the bar is a content-based restriction because its reach is defined simply by the topic (subject matter) of the covered speech[8] here, the topic being the famous person in question. And even if viewed as a regulation of purely commercial speech and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny the restriction would at least have to pass muster under the Supreme Courts test in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, which asks, in pertinent part, whether the regulation burdening speech directly advances a substantial government interest, and whether the regulation is not more extensive than necessary to serve the interest.[9] Section 1052(c), at least as broadly interpreted by the PTO, fails this test and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

The PTOs asserted justification for this total ban on registration is to protect the intellectual property right of privacy and publicity that a living person has in his/her identity.[10] Putting aside whether the PTO has a legitimate interest under the Lanham Act in protecting intellectual property rights that are creatures of state law, these justifications plainly fail on their merits.

With respect to the right of privacy, the government does not have a legitimate interest in protecting public figures, such as former President Trump, from speech that criticizes, ridicules, or even praises them. Rather, the First Amendment recognizes a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.[11]

And even if the government has a legitimate interest in guarding the state right of publicity, the Lanham Acts absolute bar on registering the name of a famous individual absent written consent is far more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. No state recognizes such a sweeping right of publicity that it is subject to zero countervailing First Amendment protections. As Jennifer Rothman observes, [a]t least five balancing approaches have been applied to evaluate First Amendment defenses in right of publicity cases.[12]:

Accordingly, the PTOs absolute ban on the registration of marks such as TRUMP TOO SMALL is far more extensive than necessary to protect the right of publicity, which would not prevent the use of TRUMP TOO SMALL under any states right of publicity regime.

These various free speech defenses to the right of publicity have been criticized by scholars for providing an inadequate, misleading patchwork of First Amendment protections.[23] But the PTOs application of Section 1052(c) is even worse: the PTO takes no countervailing interests into account before denying registration to a mark. The PTO fails to consider: whether registration of the mark would likely cause consumer confusion; whether it would cause dilution of the public figures brand; whether the mark suggests a false connection with the person (as separately provided by other provisions); whether there is unjust enrichment or any other type of unfair competition; whether the use of the famous persons name constitutes news, political commentary, parody, or entertainment speech at the heart of the First Amendment; and indeed without considering any First Amendment defense or legitimate Lanham Act policy whatsoever.

Hence, the PTOs interpretation of Section1052(c) is a First Amendment-free zone. But what remedy should the Federal Circuit provide? Should the statute be construed so as to require source confusion, dilution, or a false connection with the celebrity before denying registration?[24] Such an interpretation is not plausible because there are separate provisions preventing registration under these circumstances, such that this interpretation would render Section 1052(c) duplicative of Sections 1052(a), (d), and (f).[25] Should the Federal Circuit remand with instructions that the PTO apply one of the First Amendment defenses to the right of publicity detailed above before declining to register a mark, even though those defenses are roundly criticized by scholars?; or perhaps one of the First Amendment defenses that are recommended by scholars?[26] Which one? Is the PTO capable of applying First Amendment balancing tests such as transformative use or fair use in routine registration decisions?; determinations that befuddle and confuse Article III federal courts? Is the PTAB the right body to make such determinations? Do we really want the PTO to be judging distinctions between political speech and purely commercial speech, or might that result in new speech discrimination issues? If the PTO cannot apply a First Amendment test in a reliable, predictable way, must the statute be invalidated because it is impermissibly vague with respect to what speech it burdens?[27]

Or have we gotten this whole question exactly backwards? Perhaps the prohibition on registering famous persons names serves in some way to protect political speech. After all, if the PTO registers a mark that is political commentary about a famous person, this gives the registrant certain nationwide rights allowing the registrant to burden other speakers from using the political speech in commerce to the extent it would result in likely confusion. Hence, in some circumstances registration of famous persons names could perhaps result in less political speech, not more. One thinks of a potential 2024 Marco Rubio presidential campaign that seeks to sell T-Shirts saying TRUMP TOO SMALL, but is burdened by the national registration of that mark by Mr. Elster. As Judge Reyna wrote in dissent in In re Tam, if the expressive content of the mark precludes regulation, on what authority may the government grant Mr. Tam the exclusive right to use this mark in commerce?[28] Perhaps the courts should analyze statutes such as this one in the flexible way Justice Breyer suggests in his partial dissent in Brunetti: by focusing on the interests the First Amendment protects and considering whether the harm to those interests is disproportionate in light of the relevant regulatory objectives.[29] But these are mere dissents, not the law. The government has not met its burden of advancing such a pro-speech rationale. If protecting political speech were the true government interest behind Section 1052(c), it is a wholly insufficient vehicle for protecting that interest. It is insufficient protection because it still allows the political figure himself to register the political speech including his name, thereby burdening others from using that speech in commerce. Moreover, the PTO can register all kinds of marks that constitute political speech so long as they do not contain the name of a famous person without his consent. The binding precedent of the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court requires the conclusion that denying the benefits of national registration to marks constituting political speech under these circumstances constitutes an impermissible burden on free speech in violation of the First Amendment.

[1] In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1629, 2015 WL 496132, *12 (TTAB 2015).

[2] Id. at *12-*14.

[3] In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ2d 1176, 2010 WL 5191373, *3 (TTAB 2010).

[4] In re Elster, No. 20-2205, Doc. 43 (Corrected Joint Appendix) at 111 (Response to Office Action of Feb. 19, 2018) (Fed. Cir.) (available on Pacer).

[5] Id.

[6] See In re Elster, No 20-2205 (Fed. Cir.).

[7] See In re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) is unconstitutional with respect to the bar on disparaging marks), affd, Matal v. Tam, 137 Sup. Ct.1744 (2017); In re Brunetti, 877 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) is unconstitutional with respect to the bar on immoral and scandalous marks), affd, Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 Sup. Ct. 2294 (2019).

[8] In re Tam, 808 F.3d at 1334 (citing Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S.Ct. 2218, 2230 (2015)).

[9] 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980). See also Matal, 137 Sup. Ct. at 1764 & n. 17 (opinion of Alito, J.) ([W]e leave open the question whether Central Hudson provides the appropriate test for deciding free speech challenges to provisions of the Lanham Act because the disparagement clause cannot withstand even Central Hudson scrutiny); Brunetti, 139 Sup.Ct. at 2298 (The Court in Tam held that viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional but could not agree on the overall framework for deciding the case); In re Tam, 808 F.3d at 1364-68 (Dyk, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (purely commercial speech can be regulated subject to the Central Hudson test).

[10] In re Hoefflin, 2010 WL 5191373, *1.

[11] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).

[12] Jennifer Rothman, The Right of Publicity 145 (Harvard U. Press 2018).

[13] C.B.C. Distribution & Mktg., Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 2007).

[14] Id. at 824.

[15] Doe v. TCI Cablevision, 110 S.W.3d 363, 374 (Mo. 2003) (quoting Mark S. Lee,Agents of Chaos: Judicial Confusion in Defining the Right of Publicity-Free Speech Interface, 23 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 471, 500 (2003)).

[16] Id. at 374.

[17] Comedy III Prods., Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal. 4th 387, 404 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

[18] Id. at 409-10.

[19] See, e.g., Davis v. Electronic Arts., 775 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2015).

[20] Id.

[21] Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition 47. Rothman refers to this as the relatedness test. Rothman, Right of Publicity 146.

[22] Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 100405 (2d Cir. 1989).

[23] See, e.g., David Franklyn & Adam Kuhn, Owning Oneself in a World of Others: Towards a Paid-for First Amendment, 49 Wake Forest L. Rev. 977, 1011 (2014) (The right [of publicity] is growing unchecked, and attempts to balance it against the First Amendment have resulted in a patchwork of misleading potential defenses.); Rothman, The Right of Publicity at 145 (The uncertainty of what a speaker can do has itself chilled speech because content creators do not want to risk litigation or liability.); Stacey L. Dogan & Mark A. Lemley, What the Right of Publicity Can Learn from Trademark Law, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1161, 1162 (2006) ([T]he courts have developed no meaningful counterweight to this ever-expanding right [of publicity]. Instead, they have created a few ad hoc exceptions in cases where the sweeping logic of the right of publicity seems to lead to results they consider unfair.); Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and the Right of Publicity, 40 Hous. L. Rev. 903, 930 (2003) ([T]here is good reason to think that the right of publicity is unconstitutional as to all noncommercial speech, and perhaps even as to commercial advertising as well.)

[24] See Brunetti, 139 Sup.Ct. at 2304 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (Our precedents warn us against interpreting statutes in ways that would likely render them unconstitutional).

[25] See In re Brunetti, 877 F.3d at 1355 (It is thus permissible to construe a statute in a manner that preserves its constitutionality only where the construction is reasonable.); Brunetti, 139 Sup. Ct. at 2302 & note * (declining to narrowly construe the bar on registering scandalous marks to avoid unconstitutionality).

[26] See, e.g., Franklin & Kuhn; Dogan & Lemley, supra note 23.

[27] See In re Tam, 808 F.3d at 1358 (OMalley, J., concurring) (opining that the disparagement provision of Section 1052(a) should be invalidated because it is impermissibly vague in violation of the Fifth Amendment).

[28] In re Tam, 808 F.3d at 1378 (Reyna, J., dissenting).

[29] Brunetti, 139 Sup.Ct. at 2306 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Read the original post:
Section 1052(c) of the Lanham Act: A First Amendment-Free Zone? - Patently-O

Mark Twain is often given credit for saying history doesnt repeat itself, but it rhymes. Whether Twain actually said those exact words, the phrase expresses an important truth about historical events and figures.

Even casual observers of history can see parallels in the ways constants of the human condition such as war, poverty, greed, and corruption are addressed throughout time.

Much like different words in the lines of a poem, different players through eras of history often sound a lot alike.

For example, it may be difficult to know which historical figure made the following remark.

I don't give a %@#* what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if it'll save it, save this plan. That's the whole point. We're going to protect our people if we can.

While the quote would fit in well with current news, Richard Nixon made that statement almost 50 years ago while attempting to avoid prosecution for his crimes in the Watergate scandal. Although Nixon claimed executive privilege as a sitting president, those claims were rejected by the Supreme Court.

A similar but more extreme strategy is being used today, as former president Trump pushes his claim of executive privilege in the investigation of the violent January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

That claim was formally rejected December 9 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

In the ruling, Judge Patricia A. Millett wrote the following.

On the record before us, former President Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Bidens judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents. Both Branches agree that there is a unique legislative need for these documents and that they are directly relevant to the Committees inquiry into an attack on the Legislative Branch and its constitutional role in the peaceful transfer of power.

That seems to rhyme with the Supreme Court ruling rejecting Nixons claim of executive privilege in 1974.

Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to Presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence.

Trump is widely expected to appeal the case decided by three judges appointed by Democrats to the Supreme Court, where six of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans.

Trump, his supporters and his attorneys have made the decision to stonewall and delay the investigation, hoping the Supreme Court or the Republican controlled Congress they anticipate may end it. Therefore, they didnt bother to offer any reason for their claims of executive privilege.

According to the appeals court ruling there was a failure even to allege, let alone demonstrate, any particularized harm that would arise from disclosure, any distinct and superseding interest in confidentiality attached to these particular documents, lack of relevance, or any other reasoned justification for withholding the documents.

Trump has exhibited no remorse for his role in promoting a violent attack on our democracy. and continues the unethical and dishonest behavior that led to the violence on January 6.

It is obvious even to casual observers that the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol would not have happened if Trump and his Republican followers in Congress had not repeated false claims of election fraud.

Despite spending millions of dollars and countless hours trying to find evidence for those claims, there is still no evidence of voter fraud. Nevertheless, the former president and his followers continue to promote the idea that the 2020 election was stolen and encourage attacks on democracy.

History records Richard Nixon famously making a speech proclaiming I am not a crook.

More recently, history records former president Trump expressing pride in promoting the violent attack on our democracy.

Trump spokesperson Liz Harrington recently posted the following on Twitter. Anybody that doesnt think there wasnt massive Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election is either very stupid, or very corrupt!

Of course, the use of a double negative meant the post was actually saying anyone who believes the election was stolen is either very stupid, or very corrupt!

Despite the grammatical error, this offers another instance of Trump publicly expressing pride in promoting the violent attack on our democratic institutions.

Nixon proclaimed, I am not a crook, while Trump offers support for insurrectionists.

We can only hope and pray we dont hear the final line to that rhyme.

See the original post:
Guest column: Rhymes of the times - Daily Ardmoreite

The New York State attorney general, Letitia James, is seeking to question former President Donald J. Trump under oath in a civil fraud investigation, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, an unusual move that comes at a critical juncture in a parallel criminal investigation into the former president.

Ms. James, whose office is also participating in the criminal investigation being run by the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., wants to question Mr. Trump on Jan. 7 as part of her separate civil inquiry into his business practices.

If Ms. James finds evidence of wrongdoing in the civil inquiry, she could file a lawsuit against Mr. Trump, but she could not file criminal charges.

Her request comes as Mr. Vance is pushing to determine whether Mr. Trump or his family business, the Trump Organization, engaged in criminal fraud by intentionally submitting false property values to potential lenders. Mr. Vance, a Democrat, did not seek re-election and is leaving office at the end of the year. He will be succeeded by Alvin Bragg, a former federal prosecutor elected in November.

And because the two investigations overlap both Ms. James and Mr. Vance have been focused on whether Mr. Trump inflated his property values to secure financing, and their offices are working together on the criminal inquiry Mr. Trump could refuse to sit for a deposition once Ms. James formally subpoenas him. Ronald P. Fischetti, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, said in a brief interview on Thursday that he would ask a judge to quash the subpoena.

Mr. Trumps lawyers are likely to argue that the former presidents testimony could be unfairly used against him in the criminal investigation, violating the constitutional right against self-incrimination. If a judge sided with Ms. James, Mr. Trump could invoke his Fifth Amendment right and decline to respond to questions.

Still, while that decision could not be used against Mr. Trump in the criminal investigation, it might harm him in Ms. Jamess civil inquiry. Jurors are barred from inferring anything from a defendants refusal to testify in a criminal case, but the same is not true in a civil inquiry, where Mr. Trumps silence could be used against him.

News of the move came just hours before Ms. James, a Democrat who had announced a run for governor in New York, said that she would instead seek re-election as state attorney general.

I have come to the conclusion that I must continue my work as attorney general, she said in a statement. There are a number of important investigations and cases that are underway, and I intend to finish the job.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly referred to both the criminal and the civil investigations as politically motivated witch hunts and has denied all wrongdoing.

Mr. Fischetti said that the news of Ms. Jamess request had not come as a surprise.

This is what the A.G. has been doing, working hand in glove with the D.A.s office, he said, implying that Ms. Jamess decision was political and noting that she intended to seek re-election.

Danny Frost, a spokesman for Mr. Vance, said that Ms. Jamess request was not part of the criminal investigation. He declined to elaborate and would not say whether Ms. Jamess office had notified Mr. Vances prosecutors about the request to question Mr. Trump.

A spokesman for Ms. James, whose attempt to question the former president was first reported by The Washington Post, declined to comment.

Bruce Green, who directs a center for legal ethics at Fordham University, said in an interview that it was typical for civil investigations to defer to criminal inquiries. Ms. Jamess actions, he said, might suggest she wants to put her investigation on a firm footing in case the criminal inquiry does not result in charges.

You dont want to forgo doing the civil investigation on the theory that the prosecutors are going to indict, and then they dont, Mr. Green said.

Numerous inquiries Since former President Donald Trumpleft office, there have been many investigations and inquiries into his businesses and personal affairs. Heres a list of those ongoing:

Investigation into insurance fraud. The Manhattan district attorneys office and the New York attorney generals officeare investigating whether Mr. Trump or his family business, the Trump Organization, engaged in criminal fraud by intentionally submitting false property values to potential lenders.

The criminal investigation, which is focused on Mr. Trumps statements about the value of his assets, has proceeded in fits and starts for more than three years and is reaching a crucial phase toward the end of Mr. Vances tenure.

Over the last several months, the investigators have issued subpoenas for records about Mr. Trumps properties, and interviewed a banker employed by the former presidents top lender, Deutsche Bank.

Ms. Jamess civil investigation into Mr. Trump, which has been underway since March 2019, is focused on some of the same strands as the criminal investigation being overseen by Mr. Vance, and has included scrutiny of similar properties, including Mr. Trumps Seven Springs Estate in Westchester County.

Last winter, Ms. James was able to obtain a number of documents relating to the inquiry after a judge twice rejected Mr. Trumps attempts to block their release. Some of the documents were relevant to a conservation easement at the Seven Springs property.

Ms. James was examining then whether the easement a legal agreement meant to protect a lands conservation value was legitimate and whether the Trump Organization had improperly valued the estate, allowing it a $21 million tax deduction to which it should not have been entitled.

Over the course of the investigation, Ms. Jamess prosecutors have also scrutinized some of Mr. Trumps other financial transactions, including the restructuring of the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago in 2010.

If Mr. Trump is deposed next year, it would be the second time he has been questioned under oath since leaving office. In October, he was questioned for hours in connection with a lawsuit filed by a group of demonstrators who said Mr. Trumps bodyguards had attacked them outside Trump Tower in 2015.

That deposition has not yet been released, and it is not clear when it might become public.

Go here to read the rest:
New York A.G. to Subpoena Trump to Testify in Fraud Investigation - The New York Times

Jonathan Lind, the boyfriend of the Ashburnham woman recently convicted of murdering Brandon Chicklis of Westminster, has been arrested and charged in connection with allegations he helped dispose of the mans body.

Lind is charged in Winchendon District Court with felony counts of accessory after the fact and disinterring a body, electronic court records show.

Lindsay Corcoran, communications director for Worcester District Attorney Joseph D. Early Jr., confirmedFriday evening that Lind was arrested by state police detectives assigned to Early's office with assistance from Ashburnham Police.

Lind is being held on $25,000 cash bail at the Worcester County House of Corrections, Corcoran said, and is expected to be arraigned Monday in Winchendon District Court.

Reached by phone Friday evening, Linds lawyer, Kevin C. Larson, noted his client has never fled despite being aware of the suspicion against him.

Hes known about these allegations, he denies them, and we look forward to defending them in court," Larson said.

Linds girlfriend, Julia Enright, was convicted of Chicklis murder Nov. 29 following a two-week jury trial in Worcester Superior Court.

Enright took the stand in her own defense, and testified that she went to Linds home after the June 23, 2018killing and enlisted his help in disposing of Chicklis body.

Chicklis largely skeletonized remains were found 17 days later off the side of a highway in Rindge, New Hampshire.

State police during Enrights trial said that location data for Linds phone indicated it traveled back and forth between the Ashburnham and Rindge areas multiple times between June 23 and June 24.

Lind, at a hearing prior to Enright's trial, indicated he would exercise his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if called to the stand.

A judge found his right was properly invokedand he was not called at the trial.

Enright was convicted of second-degree murder, with a jury rejecting her claim of self-defense also ruling that the first-degree charge levied by prosecutors had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Enright is scheduledto be sentenced Jan. 18.

Contact Brad Petrishen at brad.petrishen@telegram.com. Follow him on Twitter @BPetrishenTG

Original post:
Jonathan Lind, boyfriend of convicted murderer Enright, charged with helping dispose of Westminster man's body - Worcester Telegram

Late at night on the second Tuesday of January, Peter Meijer, a 33-year-old freshman congressman from West Michigan, paced the half-unpacked rooms of his new rental apartment in Washington, D.C., dreading the decision he would soon have to make.

Check out the full table of contents and find your next story to read.

Six days earlier, Meijer had pulled a smoke hood over his face and fled the U.S. House of Representatives as insurgents broke into the lower chamber. They were attempting to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Meijer had been on the job for all of three days. Once the Capitol was secured, he cast his vote to certify the election results. It was his first real act as a federal lawmakerone he believed was perfunctory. Except that it wasnt. The majority of his fellow House Republicans refused to certify the results, launching an assault on the legitimacy of American democracy.

That entire daythe vote, as much as the attackhad caught Meijer unprepared. His partys leadership had provided no guidance to its members, leaving everyone to navigate a squall of rumor and disinformation in one-man lifeboats.

The next week, when Democrats introduced an article of impeachment and promptly scheduled a vote, seeking to hold President Donald Trump accountable for inciting the mobs siege of the Capitol, Meijer steeled himself for some tough conversations within his party. But those conversations never happened: Most of Trumps staunchest defenders were too shell-shocked to defend him, even behind closed doors, and the Republican leadership in the House was once again AWOL. There were no whipping efforts, no strategy sessions, no lectures on procedure or policy. Barreling toward one of the most consequential votes in modern history, everyone was on their own.

For Meijer, the stillness was unsettling. He felt that impeachment was warrantedThe vice president and the next two in the line of succession were inside the Capitol as it was being assaulted, he says, and for three hours the president was nowhere to be foundbut he longed for a dialogue. Growing up, hed heard the legend of how a family friend, President Gerald Ford, had pardoned Richard Nixon in an act of mercy after Nixon had resigned to avoid the humiliation of being impeached and removed. Meijers first political memory was made watching the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Even as a kid, he sensed that it was trouble for the country. Now, after just over a week in office, he was bracing himself to vote to impeach the president of the United Statesa president from his own partywithout so much as a caucus meeting where competing cases might be presented.

Meijer felt angry and betrayed, like Id seen something sacred get trampled on. He told himself that Trump needed to pay. But he worried that a rash impeachment of the president might unleash an even uglier convulsion than the one hed just survived. And he knew that by voting to impeach he might be committing career suicide before my career ever began. In the days leading up to the vote, Meijer says, he barely slept.

It was the worst 96 hours of my life, he says.

Whatever his final decision, Meijer didnt want to blindside the people back in his district. So he began making calls. The conversations did not go well. Meijer remembers one man, a prominent business leader in Grand Rapids, arguing that the election had been stolen, that Trump was entitled to a second term, that Meijer was a pawn of the deep state. The man went full QAnon, spouting conspiracy theories and threatening him with vague but menacing consequences if he voted to impeach. Meijer was well acquainted with that kind of talk; one of his own siblings was fully in the grip of right-wing conspiracies. Even so, the conversation shook me to my core, Meijer says, because the facade had been stripped away. It showed me just how bad this had gotten.

After Meijer hung up, he leafed through a copy of The Federalist Papers, hoping for an epiphany. He texted with friends. He talked with his wife. Finally, he consulted a list hed compiled of like-minded members with whom he wanted to compare notes. It was a short list, and Meijer had already talked with most of them: Liz Cheney of Wyoming; Adam Kinzinger of Illinois; Fred Upton, who represented a neighboring district in Michigan. But there was one he had yet to connect with: Anthony Gonzalez, a second-term congressman from Ohio.

When Meijer reached Gonzalez on the phone, the call turned into a therapy session. Meijer kept debating with himself; meanwhile, Gonzalez, who had also been ambivalent, grew ever more adamant that Trump must be impeached. Meijer asked his colleague to explain the source of his certainty. I can convince myself not to vote for impeachment, Gonzalez said. But if my son asks me in 20 years why I didnt vote for impeachment, I couldnt convince him.

The next morning, January 13, Meijer received an encrypted message just as he was arriving at the Capitol. It was from a senior White House official, someone whod heard he was on the fence, urging the new congressman to vote for impeachment. Meijer was stunned, but hed already made up his mind anyway. Later that day, he joined Gonzalez and eight other House Republicans in voting to impeach Trump. Meijer was the only freshman among themand the only freshman in U.S. history to vote to impeach a president of his own party.

Of the 10, Ive got the most respect for Peterbecause he was brand-new, Kinzinger, one of the GOPs anti-Trump ringleaders, told me. There were other freshmen who talked a big game, but the pressure got to them. Honestly, on the day before the vote, I thought wed have 25 with us. Then it fell apart; Im surprised we wound up with 10. But what I recognized with Peter, during our conversations, was that he never talked about the political implications. And that was rare. If someone brought up the political implications, that was a good indicator that they werent going to vote with us. But the people who never brought it up, I knew they would follow through. And Peter was one of them.

Meijer figured there could be no turning back. And he was fine with that. The country needed a come-to-Jesus conversation about political extremism. The Republican Party needed an intervention over its addiction to Trump. He was going to help facilitate botheven if it meant forfeiting his career. He might lose his next election, he thought, but at least his group of 10 could offer hope for some who wanted to [see] the Republican Party get past the darkness and the violence and that sense of foreboding and doom.

After the vote, Meijers congressional officestill barely staffedwas inundated with calls and messages. His cellphone throbbed with furious texts and emails. Meijer knew he had to get away. January 6 had ushered in a new era of political mayhem, and one week later, he had put a bulls-eye on his own back. He rented a small place off the grid, packed his bags, and departed Washington with his wife. As he left town, something hed said to Gonzalez earlier that day echoed through his mind.

Were in this together, Meijer had told him.

Peter Meijer didnt run for Congress to fight for the sanity of the country or the soul of the Republican Party. If anything, hed hoped to represent a cease-fire. Justin Amash, the congressman who represented Michigans Third District for a decade, had by virtue of his constant criticism of Trump worn out his welcome with many Republican voters. When Amash made it known in the summer of 2019 that hed be leaving the party to become an independent, Meijer announced that he would seek the Republican nomination. Convinced that Trumpism was a distraction from the countrys most pressing problems, Meijer ran a campaign that reflected a certain strategic detachment. He pledged to work with the president wherever possible, and ignore him whenever necessary. He denounced Amashs calls for Trumps first impeachmentfor soliciting Ukraines assistance in his reelection campaigntelling a local news outlet, I think the American people deserve better than political theater in the House of Representatives.

Meijer had been born into nearly universal name recognition in Michigan: His great-grandfather Hendrik Meijer had founded the Meijer grocery-store chain there, which his grandfather and father grew into a behemoth, with nearly 250 stores throughout the Midwest. As a teen, he tried to avoid the attention and expectations that came with his last name by spelling it Meyer at East Grand Rapids High School. He left home for Columbia University, where he interrupted his undergraduate studies to deploy to Iraq as an Army intelligence specialist. Later, after spending 18 months in Afghanistan as a conflict analyst, he finished graduate school at NYU and found work doing urban redevelopment in Detroit. By thenand, he swears, without meaning tohed compiled quite the political rsum.

Read: The Michigan Republican who decided to tell the truth about election fraud

When he was elected with a six-point margin in November 2020, Meijer had no plans to become a troublemaker. He hoped to prioritize economic competitiveness with China. He wanted more oversight and accountability for troop deployments. He saw himself as a sober-minded person, someone who wasnt heading to Congress for the culture wars or the tribal showdowns.

And then he got to Washington. Freshman orientation was a blur of propaganda and innuendo and state-sanctioned conspiracy mongering. Meijer watched, from a hotel lounge, as the presidents lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell held a deranged press conference at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee. New members listened to powerful lawmakers leveling accusations that had no apparent basis in fact. They compared the crazed voicemails they were getting from friends and family members and swapped stories of the intimidation they were subjected to by voters demanding that they overturn the presidential-election result.

Dismayed, a group of freshman Republicans asked for a meeting with Kevin McCarthy shortly after their swearing-in. According to multiple people who attended that meeting, the House minority leader refused to give them advice, explicit or implicit, about how to vote on the election certification. Whereas Mitch McConnell was whipping furiously for certification in his Senate caucus, McCarthy left his new House members without a clue as to the partys position on whether Congress should obey the Constitution. When they pressed himone of the freshmen asked whether Trump was crazy enough to believe that decertification would somehow keep him in officeMcCarthy replied, The thing you have to understand about Donald Trump is that he hasnt been in government that long. He doesnt know how these things work.

As word got around that the freshmen were up for grabs, a lobbying blitz commenced. Some of the House hard-liners who sought to block certificationMo Brooks, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetzshared discredited YouTube testimonies and Fox News clips to emphasize how the issue was playing with the conservative base. Countering that influence were the likes of Kinzinger and Cheney, who sat down with rookie lawmakers for one-on-one conversations, warning them of the precedent they would set by objecting to the election results. Meijer remembers one longtime memberwho confessed that he did not believe the election had been stolen but said he would vote against certification anywaytelling him: This is the last thing Donald Trump will ever ask you to do.

Meijer knew that some Republicans had sincere concerns about election integrity; he himself feared that Democratic officials had taken advantage of the coronavirus pandemic and exceeded their authority to enroll absentee voters. But whatever issues he had with the way certain states had administered the election, those states had since ratified their results and submitted slates of electors to Congress to be counted. Under the Constitution, there was nothing left to do but count them and certify the final tally. Meijer says his colleagues chose to embrace a bad-faith interpretation of basic law; rather than a ministerial duty, the certification vote became just another way to make your base happy and humor the president, he says. A lot of these people were just shrugging. But, I mean, wed be basically destroying the Electoral College.

On January 6, when both bodies of Congress convened in the House chamber, Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked most of the lawmakers to move up to the gallery as the proceedings began. Not long after that, Representative Paul Gosar announced his objection to the results in his home state of Arizona, the third in the alphabetical roll call. The senators adjourned to their side of the Capitol to deliberate, and Meijer excused himself for a bathroom break. Wandering, lost on his third day at work, he eventually found an elevator, which took him all the way down to the sub-basement, where he discovered a restroom. When he walked out a few minutes later, he saw a Capitol Police officer sprinting down the corridor, yelling into his radio: Hallway clear!

Meijers gut told him something was very wrong. But his brain dissented. This is the United States Capitol, he told himself. Nobodys getting in here. Walking back with barely a brisker pace to the gallery, he discovered another officer guarding the door. You want to be locked in, he asked Meijer, or locked out? That seemed like an easy call. I said to myself, Theres no safer place to be than inside the chamber, Meijer remembers. It was his final moment of political innocence. Inside, members were fielding panicked calls from staff and sharing reports of the complex being breached and of tear gas in the Rotunda. As the rioters approached the chamber, their chanting now audible, Capitol Police shouted warnings for members to stay away from the windows.

The sergeant at arms had been pleading for calm, but suddenly his tone changed. He announced that smoke hoods were under the chairs and told members to put them on. Then he ordered an evacuation of the chamber. As Meijer helped a colleague with her hood, the mob was banging on the doors. Then a window shattered. While they looked down on some of their senior-most colleagues being rushed off the floor, Stephanie Bice, a fellow Republican freshman from Oklahoma, told Meijer that they were witnessing history. Stunned, she suggested that he take a photo. Meijer was already recording video on his iPhone. Sad, sad, sad fucking history, he told her.

The Capitol Police herded members into elevators and sent them down to the sub-basement. For a few minutesit felt much longerthey were on their own. Whats going through my mind is, what happens if we turn the corner and see a group of rioters? Were a large percentage of the House of Representatives, and we have no police presence with us. Were wandering through a tunnel system that connects to buildings that have been evacuated, Meijer recalls. Nobody was in control of the situation.

They found their way to a cafeteria in the Rayburn Building. But as soon as Capitol Police discovered them and noticed the windows facing out to the ground floor, they ordered another evacuation. This time, Capitol Police escorted them into the Longworth Building, to the Ways and Means Committee room, and set up a security perimeter outside. Catching his breath, Meijer felt like he was back in a war zone.

Inside the committee room, there was a lot of tension, a lot of suspicion among the members. There was no fraternizing across party lines; Democrats huddled with Democrats and Republicans with Republicans. But there was a shared sense of dread. The folks who whipped up [the violence] were just as terrified as everyone else; they fled like everyone else, Meijer says. That was not Oh, our plan worked! That was Oh, good God.

Meijer remembers straining to hear Nancy Pelosi giving a speech through a thick mask. He remembers raiding a refrigerator in the office of Kevin Brady, the ranking Republican on the committee, and drinking a beer to pass the time. And he remembers walking into a small side room and encountering two House Republican colleagues. They were discussing the Twenty-Fifth Amendmenttalking about phone calls they made to the White House, encouraging officials to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Meijer says. Neither of them voted for impeachment a week later.

When the Capitol was finally secured and members returned to the House chamber, Meijer expected an outraged, defiant House of Representatives to vote in overwhelming numbers to certify the election results, sending a message to the mob that Congress would not be scared away from fulfilling its constitutional obligations. But as he began talking with his colleagues, he was shocked to realize that more of themperhaps far more of themwere now preparing to object to the election results than before the riot.

On the House floor, moments before the vote, Meijer approached a member who appeared on the verge of a breakdown. He asked his new colleague if he was okay. The member responded that he was not; that no matter his belief in the legitimacy of the election, he could no longer vote to certify the results, because he feared for his familys safety. Remember, this wasnt a hypothetical. You were casting that vote after seeing with your own two eyes what some of these people are capable of, Meijer says. If theyre willing to come after you inside the U.S. Capitol, what will they do when youre at home with your kids?

Meijer glanced down at his phone. It was crackling with messages from people in his districtsome checking on his well-being; others warning him not to blow the insurrection out of proportion, arguing that it was little more than a spontaneous tour of the Capitol. He swiped past most of the missives. But one, from a longtime activist hed gotten to know, caught his eye. You better not buckle and wimp out to the liberals, the man wrote. Those who stormed the Capital today are True American Heroes. This election was a fraud and you know thats true. Peter, dont sell us out!!!

Those who stormed the Capitol attacked our republic today, Meijer replied. They trampled on the Constitution. We have a rule of law, courts, and peaceful means of resolving disputes.

No Sir. They are showing their God Given America Right, the man texted back. When the truth is being hidden, the Second Amendment gives every one of those people the right to do what they did today.

Meijer silenced his phone and cast his vote to certify the election.

Listen to an interview with William J. Walker, sergeant-at-arms of the U.S. House of Representatives, on The Experiment.

Listen and subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Google Podcasts

For all the negatives that defined Meijers first weeks on the jobthe incompetence and the cravenness, the violence and the threatshe emerged from the gantlet relieved that at least now he was liberated to speak his mind about the GOPs decay.

Meijer had never been a Trump guy. Like so many Republican candidates seeking to pass muster with the presidents base, he had been careful to say the right things. Hed touted Trumps economic record. Hed ignored, or downplayed, much of his extreme rhetoric. But all the while, Meijer had studied Trump with trepidation. He viewed the 45th president as a manifestation of Americas psychological imbalance, someone who reflected our anger and insecurities instead of our confidence and aspirations. He feared Trumps authoritarian instincts, but clung to a belief that the presidents grip on the American right would soon loosen.

After the impeachment vote, Meijer felt he was positioned to advocate for what he believed would be an imminent, sweeping overhaul of the party. He threw himself into the public debate surrounding January 6. He became a fixture on national news programs. He accepted every invitationespecially those that seemed hostileto address local party chapters. At every stop, in every setting, Meijer forced the issue, believing that he was on the right side of history, and that an awakening was at hand.

As of late January, he says, I thought there was the opportunity to have a harsh confrontation with reality. It was going to be a very unpleasant 18 months, 24 months, but maybe we would do the necessary soul-searching and reconstruction.

His optimism didnt last long. In February, two of the county-level Republican Parties in Meijers districtCalhoun and Barryvoted to formally censure him. (Calhouns leaders accused Meijer of having betrayed the trust of so many who supported you and violate[d] our faith in our most basic constitutional values and protections.) The next month, as other local parties across Michigan were debating similar reprimands of both Meijer and Fred Upton, the state GOP chair joked with party activists that assassination was one remedy for dealing with the two of them.

Listen: The Ticket podcast interview with Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer: Theres Going to Be a Horrible Cost

By April, Meijer had a primary challenger. The criticism back home was unceasing; the only praise he received was whispered. National polls showed that tens of millions of Republican voters still believed the election had been stolen. Looking around, Meijer saw that he was a leader without any following and realized how Pollyannaish hed been. Its like, All right, this is going to be a longer, deeper project than I thought, he says.

Meijers sense of urgency gradually gave way to self-doubt. He began to wonder whether his appeals to decency and democracy came across as pearl clutching. He could tell he was rubbing some of his constituents the wrong waythey could stomach a disagreement with their congressman; what they couldnt tolerate was the lecturing and the finger-wagging. He sensed that he might be doing more harm than good with his high-minded rhetoric. Ive come to realize the limitations of performative outrage, he says.

So he backed off. He took voters earfuls in stride. He says he decided that by actively trying to correct them, I may have been inadvertently postponing the self-correction that would come with some distance from Trumps presidency.

Over time, the threats ebbed, the antagonistic encounters subsided, and Meijer got some semblance of his life back. He was able to spend more time on the policy issues he cared about. For most of his constituents, discussions of election integrity and January 6 and Meijers vote for impeachment had become redundantand boring. We had a moment in one of our town halls [when] there were all these people who said, Can we talk about something else now? Meijer recalls.

In August, when I accompanied Meijer on a swing through his district during the congressional recess, something strange happened. A woman raised her hand, after Meijers luncheon talk at a Grand Rapids country club, and asked him about the insurrection on January 6. Everyone fell still; the room full of old friends whod been buying raffle tickets and cracking jokes was suddenly on edge. Meijer had once offered lively commentary on the matter. But on this day, he was restrained, giving a brief synopsis of his whereabouts when the Capitol was overrun.

In the parking lot a few minutes later, Meijer turned to me. I havent gotten that question in a long time, he said. Sure enough, in more than a dozen stops across his district over the summer and fall, this was the only one where I saw anyone ask Meijer about the madness of January. Most of the questions he got were about the socialist Democratic agenda, the GOPs prospects for taking back control of Congress in 2022, and President Joe Bidens disastrous exit from Afghanistan. (This last topic allowed Meijer numerous victory laps for the unauthorized trip he took to Kabul during the U.S. evacuation. Having been in the crosshairs of his own party for so long, Meijer was delighted to be rebuked by the White House.)

In October, Meijer stood inside a classroom at his alma mater, East Grand Rapids High School, taking questions from constitutional-studies students. This was the very class that had fueled Meijers political imagination as a teenager. The sophomores and juniors he stood before were studying the same curriculum that had informed his core beliefs about America and the responsibilities of government. The students listened to Meijer warily. Finally, George, a shy-sounding student in the back of the room, raised his hand and announced that he had a question on behalf of his friends. What were wondering, George said sheepishly, is how do you define what it means to be a Republican right now?

Meijer thought for a moment. Then he launched into a soliloquy about how local control of political institutions produces more accountability, more efficiency, and better results. This was the answer to a question that George was not asking. The young man clearly wanted to understand how Meijers version of Republicanism differed from the Trumpist one, how the congressman might distinguish his vision for the party from the current MAGA model. George told me, after class, that he was frustrated by Meijers evasive response.

Later, over beers at a nearby pub, I reminded Meijer of his burden in the aftermath of the impeachment vote: He and the other nine dissenters were supposed to be the hope for their partys future. He had just spoken to a group of soon-to-be voters whose notions of Republicanism were formed by red hats and angry chants and crazed tweets. Meijer had just looked the partys future in the eye and acted as though all of that was normal. How do you explain to George, I asked, the difference between the Republican Party that fills his imagination and that scares him, versus the Republican Party that you want to represent?

Well, my Republican Party wouldnt scare him, Meijer said with a shrug.

I asked if he understood why George and his friends might be scared right now. He smirked. The inability to affirmatively and consistently reject anti-Semitism and white supremacy?

The fundamental problem, Meijer said, is that Republicans are offering no plans for improving lives and making the future a more promising place. Instead, the party continues to rely on grievance and fearand misinformationto scare voters into their ranks. But he didnt say any of this to George.

After our interview, Meijer went upstairs to a private lounge at the pub to mingle with small-business owners. For a guy who talks a lot about the militants in his party, he doesnt engage with them much. Meijer benefits from representing wealthy and well-educated pockets of West Michigan, an area where pious Dutch sensibilities tend to dull the partisan discourse. This means that hes relatively insulated from the hysteria some of his colleagues deal with daily. Meijer insists hes not numb to the enduring threathe can still picture the man at a fairgrounds screaming Motherfucking traitor! at himbut he does believe, at least in his district, that the worst has passed.

For a lot of people here, they swore that impeachment vote was the end for Peter Meijer, says Ben Geiger, the chair of the Barry County Republican Party, which voted in February to censure the congressman. But Ill tell you, it hasnt come up much since [February]. Hes been working hard on a lot of other things. I dont know if hes trying to make people forgethes doing his job. But I do think some people have let it go.

This might be the best-case scenario for Meijers own careerRepublican voters forgiving and forgetting, politely moving on, putting January 6 behind them. It might also be the worst-case scenario for America.

Heres the thing: Some people have not let it go. Large pluralities of Republican votersdepending on the poll, sometimes outright majorities of thembelieve that the election was stolen. Thousands of demonstrators have protested at state-capitol buildings, demanding forensic audits of the 2020 results. Scores of local election officials nationwide have been run out of office, many of them replaced by people who insist that the system theyre now charged with overseeing is rigged.

Meijer knows lots of people who cant let it go. Theres one he thinks of every day: his sister.

Haley Meijer is two years older than her brother. Along with a younger sister, they were close as children but grew into very different people: Peter the quiet, straitlaced rule follower; Haley the rebel. She was a hippie who bashed the familys conservative politics, then an avid Trump supporter eager for culture wars with the elitist left. More recently, shes become a QAnon follower and devout conspiracy theorist.

When Meijer announced his run for Congress, he said, Haley was enthusiastic. Which stood to reason: He was running against a Democratto the QAnon crowd, the party of pedophiles and cannibalswhile promising to partner with Donald Trump to make America great again. Not long after his victory in November, however, Haley became fixated on the idea that the election had been rigged. She peppered him with bad stats and debunked rumors and thirdhand accounts of cheating. Meijer had checked with local officials in Michigan to confirm that everythingregistration numbers, voter turnout, down-ballot patternsadded up. He tried telling her as much. But she was down the rabbit hole, watching all the testimony from these cases brought by Rudy Giuliani. Im watching the same hearings, trying to find anything that resembles sanity, he says. And shes addicted.

When the mob invaded the Capitol on January 6, Meijer received a text message from his sister: Sending love and prayers. He thanked her and confirmed that he was safe. But she was silent after he voted to certify the election that night, and after he voted to impeach Trump and was deluged with death threats. Soon after, Haley, a singer and songwriter based in Los Angeles, began commenting favorably on the Facebook posts of Tom Norton, who announced a campaign to defeat Meijer in the 2022 Republican primary. (Haley Meijer said in a statement that she loves and admires her brother, though they have differing beliefs on certain subjects.)

In her worldview, Meijer says, theres no room for disagreements. Its good versus evil. You have the side of light and the side of dark. You have God and you have Satan. And if youre not on the side of God, then what side are you on?

This has been perhaps the most trying aspect of Meijers job. While grieving his sisters obsession with conspiracy theories, he has to work alongside the very people, like fellow freshman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who are pushing those lies. They make folks like my sister think theyre on her team, Meijer says. And thats what pisses me off. They arent the ones paying the price when the consequences come due. Paul Gosar wasnt shot on January 6Ashli Babbitt was.

I was surprised to hear Meijer mention Gosar, the conspiracy-spreading, white-nationalist-sympathizing congressman who in November was censured by the House for sharing an animated video that depicted him murdering Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In our many hours of conversation, Meijer had declined to call out any of his colleagues by name. (Watching him contort himself to avoid criticizing Kevin McCarthy was the closest Ive come to seeing a man tortured.) This reticence, he explained, is his way of trying to bring down the temperature. Meijer is convinced that there are more Republicans like himrational, pragmatic, disgusted by the turn the party has takenthan there are like Gosar. Because they have the numbers, he says, theres no need to engage in guerrilla tactics. They can reason and debate like adults. They can take the high road. They can play the long game.

Maybe hes right. Or maybe this will prove a ruinous miscalculation. Whatever the numbers, the reality is that Meijers side is getting quieter while the other side is getting louder. His side is letting go while the other side is digging in. His side is unilaterally disarming while the other side is escalating every day.

In the middle of September, Anthony Gonzalez announced that he was retiring from Congress. Describing the strain on his familyhis wife and children required a police escort due to the threats against himGonzalez told The New York Times that seeking reelection wasnt worth it. I texted Meijer about the news. Gutting, he wrote back.

When we spoke next, a few weeks later, Meijer sounded defeated. Although Gonzalez was the first of the 10 House Republican impeachment supporters to fall by the wayside, he wouldnt be the last. The stress of the past nine months had ground down the others in the groupwhich, he argued, is exactly what Trump and his cronies wanted. What that faction is banking on is exhaustion, Meijer said. They want life in the shoes of the 10 of us to be miserable. The question he and his friends now ask of themselves isnt just Can I win reelection? Instead, he said, Its Am I going to have to talk for the next few years about Italian military satellites and bamboo ballots and whatever [MyPillow CEO] Mike Lindell says?

In the days after January 6, Meijer believed he was part of a mission to rescue the Republican Party from itself. Now he laughs at his own navet. Ten people isnt a popular movement. And in truth, only two of themCheney and Kinzingerhave shown the stomach for the sort of sustained offensive that would be required to rehabilitate the GOP. The other eight, having glanced over their shoulders and seen no reinforcements on the way, chose varying degrees of retreat.

I dont blame them. They did their tour in Vietnam; why would they want to go back? Kinzinger told me in mid-October. The responsibility for fixing the party isnt on the 10 of us; its on the 180 who didnt do anything. Its kind of like Flight 93: If only a few people fight back, that plane hits the Capitol. But because everyone fought back, it didnt.

Two weeks after we spoke, Kinzinger announced his retirement from Congress.

In light of his sides attritionCheney kicked out of the GOP leadership, Gonzalez and Kinzinger quitting CongressI asked Meijer how he now thinks about the divisions in his party. There are people who are part of the problem, he said. There are people who are actively trying to fight the problem. And then there are people who have become acutely aware of the problem, but dont know how to fight it.

Meijer wants to believe that hes in the second group. But more and more, he belongs in the third. He can see the foundational threats facing American self-governmentbut he cant decide how best to counteract them. If he now views the struggle to rebuild his party as a long-term proposition, then part of his job is just surviving, he says, sticking around long enough to recruit allies and gain momentum to take back control of the GOP. Its a common instinct, and a dangerous one, because the party is playing its own long game.

In the fall, a bundled donation of $25,000 was deposited into Meijers campaign account, courtesy of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which named him to its Patriot Program. It was an honor not bestowed upon some of the others whod voted for impeachment. Maybe this was Kevin McCarthy and the party leadership mending fences, signaling to Meijer that they value him despite his breaking rank. Or maybe it was the party rewarding his recent good behaviorand reminding him of the benefits of being a team player.

Meijer will face multiple primary challengers in 2022, including a Trump-administration official, John Gibbs, who already has the former presidents endorsement against RINO Congressman Peter Meijer. Because of the districts moderate makeup and his ample finances, Meijer is favored to win reelection. What comes next is murkier. Its already rumored in Michigan Republican circles that Meijer will run for U.S. Senate in 2024. Rising that quickly in todays GOPfrom unknown Millennial to statewide nominee in the space of four yearswill demand playing to the party base. That wont necessarily require the overt delegitimization of American democracy. A blind eye here, some radio silence there, will do the trick.

This is the essence of Meijers struggle. He still wants to do the right thing; this fall, he was one of just nine House Republicans to vote to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena issued by the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection. But Meijer also wants a future in a party that is controlled by the president he voted to exile. GOP elders have told Meijer that because he barely overlapped with Trump, he may not be on Mar-a-Lagos radar like some of the Republican stalwarts who voted to impeach. Its better not to poke the bear, they tell him; better to let Trump and his loyalists forget the name Peter Meijer altogether.

In this sense, the Republican Party is embracing that old definition of insanity. Its leaders believed they could wait out Trumps candidacy in 2016. Then they believed they could wait out his presidency. Now they believe they can wait him out yet againeven as the former president readies a campaign to reclaim his old job and makes clear his intent to run not just against a Democratic opponent but against democracy itself.

Meijer says hes pretty much resigned to Trump winning his partys nomination in 2024, and worries that the odds of Trump returning to the White House are growing stronger as Bidens presidency loses steam. Meijer knows the strain Trumps candidacy might place on a system that nearly buckled during the last election cycle. Whats worse: Meijer sees Trump inspiring copycats, some of them far smarter and more sophisticated, enemies of the American ideal who might succeed where Trump failed.

The real threat isnt Donald Trump; its somebody who watched Donald Trump and can do this a lot better than he did, Meijer says.

The powerlessness in his voice when he says this is unnerving. In the space of a year, he transformed from a political romantic to an emboldened survivor to a daunted skeptic. He tried to force a reckoning on his party; now the reckoning is coming for Republicans like him.

At one point, Meijer described to me the psychological forces at work in his party, the reasons so many Republicans have refused to confront the tragedy of January 6 and the nature of the ongoing threat. Some people are motivated by raw power, he said. Others have acted out of partisan spite, or ignorance, or warped perceptions of truth and lies. But the chief explanation, he said, is fear. People are afraid for their safety. They are afraid for their careers. Above all, they are afraid of fighting a losing battle in an empty foxhole.

Meijer cant blame them. I just feel lonely, he told me, sighing with exasperation.

Most of his colleagues, Meijer believes, want to be with him. They pat him on the back and whisper encouragement into his ear. They say theyre rooting for his side. But they dont think his side can win. So they do nothing, convincing themselves that the problem will take care of itself, while guaranteeing that it will only get worse.

This article appears in the January/February 2022 print edition with the headline The Freshman.

Read more from the original source:
Peter Meijer Voted to Impeach. Can He Survive in the GOP? - The Atlantic

In December 2021, former U.S. Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and lawyer John Eastman appeared prepared to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights based on the constitutional provision that specifies, in part, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself as they defied a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. As this news circulated on social media, so did a quote from former U.S. President Donald Trump:

This is a genuine quote from Trump.

Trump made this remark during a September campaign rally in Council Bluffs, Iowa during the 2016 presidential election campaign. At the time, Trump was attacking his political opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after some of her staff members took the Fifth Amendment while being questioned by the House Select Committee during their investigation into the 2012 attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi.

Trump said: So there are five people taking the Fifth Amendment. Like you see on the mob, right? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If youre innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

You can see a video of Trumps remarks below:

While Trump equated taking the Fifth Amendment to a sign of guilt during this speech, that hasnt always been his position. In fact, Trump has used the Fifth Amendment himself. Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment right during a divorce deposition in 1990 to avoid answering nearly a hundred questions.

Trump has changed his position on the Fifth Amendment a few times over the years. In 1998, after former President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about an affair, Trump suggested that Clinton would have been better off if he had taken the Fifth Amendment. But in 2014,after a number of women came forward accusing comedian Bill Cosby of rape and sexual assault, Trump tweeted some free advice, saying that if Cosby was innocent, he shouldnt remain silent because it makes him look guilty.

Trump wrote: I am no fan of Bill Cosby but never-the-less some free advice if you are innocent, do not remain silent. You look guilty as hell!

Sources:

Sheth, Sonam. Key Witness in Congress Capitol Riot Probe Says He Intends to Plead the 5th Amendment. Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-clark-january-6-committee-plead-5th-amendment-2021-12. Accessed 8 Dec. 2021.

If YouRe Innocent, Why Are You Taking the Fifth? Trump Said Years after Invoking It Himself. Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/23/if-youre-innocent-why-are-you-taking-the-fifth-trump-said-years-after-invoking-it-himself/. Accessed 8 Dec. 2021.

Trump and the Fifth Amendment: Its Complicated. https://gulfnews.com/world/americas/trump-and-the-fifth-amendment-its-complicated-1.2031688. Accessed 8 Dec. 2021.

United States of America 1789 (Rev. 1992) Constitution Constitute. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992?lang=en. Accessed 8 Dec. 2021.

View post:
Did Trump Say 'If You're Innocent, Why Are You Taking the 5th Amendment?' - Snopes.com

Its an irony those caught up in their alleged participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection either wont admit or, even sadder, dont even recognize.

Jan. 6 committee: What we know about the panel targeting Trump aides

House investigators are subpoenaing aides that were part of former President Donald Trump's inner circle. Here's what we know.

Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

Trump supporters and members of Trumps inner circle are actively proclaiming their love and appreciation for the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the one that protects individuals from having to testify if they believe what they have to say might incriminate them.

Its a shame that many of them didnt show the same love and appreciation for the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights, or the other 17amendments to the Constitution, or the original seven articles, or the lovely preamble.

But, that is the irony of the Jan. 6 insurrection, something that those caught up in their alleged participation either wont admit or, even sadder, dont even recognize. Its coming out more and more as the House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 issuesmore subpoenas to potential witnesses.

We live in a country where those suspected of attempting to destroy our Constitution have the ability to seek and receive the protections afforded there.

This is why America is great.

I wonder if any of those who stormed the Capitol in January, or any of those who attempted to overturn the results of the election, understand that.

I doubt it.

And even if they did, I doubt theyd admit it.

Theyd invoke their right to ignorance.

Most recently it has been former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and lawyer and Trump confidant John Eastman who have said they will take the Fifth.

Trumps longtime friend and adviser Roger Stone also announced that he would be invoking his right against self-incrimination.

There already have been many others, and there most likely will be more to come.

The attack on the capital left a police officer and four others dead.

The attacks on the Constitution also included attempts by elected officials to overturn the election. Arizona Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar and Debbie Lesko voted to decertify results from Arizona and Pennsylvania. Arizona Rep. David Schweikert voted to decertify Pennsylvanias.

What would they say under oath about their behavior in the dark days leading up to the insurrection?

Or would some of them also seek refuge under the blanket of protection provided by the Constitution?

And what about Trump himself?

It doesnt seem that many of his friends or followers share the former presidents opinion of the Fifth Amendment.

He said of it, You see the mob takes the Fifth. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

For more opinions content, please subscribe.

Excerpt from:
Jan. 6 insurrectionists seek protection from the Constitution they tried to destroy - The Arizona Republic

Seemingly unrelated events this week and next are connected in ways that shed light on a path forward for our democracys future. Yesterday, the House passed Rep. Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffHouse goes after Trump with bill to curb presidential abuses of power Roger Stone to plead the Fifth in Jan. 6 investigation Jan. 6 panel faces new test as first witness pleads the Fifth MOREs (D-Calif.)Protecting our Democracy Act (PODA).Next week, former Trump acting attorney general Jeffrey Clark and former Trump adviser Stephen MillerStephen MillerChristie says Trump, Meadows should have warned him of positive COVID-19 test The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - Biden to tackle omicron risks with new travel rules Midterms are coming: Will we get answers on Jan. 6 before it's too late? MORE are scheduled for depositions with the House Select Committee investigating Jan. 6.

Whats the link?

Among PODAs key provisions is one that calls on federal courts to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of civil law disputes over compliance with Congressional subpoenas.

On Dec. 1, the eve of the Committee citing Clark for criminal contempt for having frivolously asserted executive privilege last month, Clarks lawyer wrote the Committee that Clark would re-appear and assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent on a question-by-question basis. That appearance will occur on Dec. 16.

Given Clarks prior baseless assertions of privilege, there is every reason to expect a legal fight to arise if Clark asserts Fifth Amendment rights to questions whose answers could in no way incriminate him. The Committee could proceed with its criminal contempt referral, but with Clark having appeared and made claims that may be arguable, the Committee would be well advised to consider going to court to obtain a judgment of civil contempt. That would oblige Clark to answer questions previously stone-walled in bad faith or go to jail until he does.

As for Miller, his appearance is set for Dec. 14. He may followthe now-indicted Steve BannonStephen (Steve) Kevin BannonAppeals court rejects Trump effort to deny records to Jan. 6 panel Jan. 6 panel threatens Meadows with contempt Judge sets July trial date in Bannon case MOREs path and refuse to cooperate, in which case he will be cited for criminal contempt. Or he may follow Clarks new path and take the Fifth. Alternately, having served as a White House adviser to Trump, he may assert a claim of executive privilege that is a more defensible, at least for the time being, than Clarks. In that case, a civil law dispute is sure to occur over former President TrumpDonald TrumpOn The Money Senate risks Trump's ire with debt ceiling deal Bank regulator erupts in partisan split as Democrats go rogue Biden to appear on 'The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon' on Friday MOREs instruction to assert the privilege.

On Dec. 9, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trumps executive privilege claim, as a former president, is invalid because the current president, Joe Biden, and Congress agree as to its compelling need for the evidence in the Select Committees investigation of the Capitol attack.

By now, we are well familiar with Trumps recurring strategy of running out the clock by filing actions aimed at delaying resolution until after the current session of Congress expires, mooting the case. Enacting PODA with its civil enforcement expedition provision would counteract that cynical tactic.

Notwithstanding current Congressional standoffs between the parties, there are reasons to hope for bipartisan support for such measures in the Senate. The current administration is Democratic, and with history suggesting a change of party control in Congress next election, Republicans may be anticipating their committees subpoenas to Biden administration officials.

In the past, resistance to Congressional testimony has not been limited to Republican administrations. In 2017, Republicans themselves proposed similar acceleration of Court actions to enforce Congresss subpoena power.

This correction is just the beginning of PODAs provisions to rein in presidential abuses of power and to root out corruption. As the New York Times put it, PODA is a point-by-point rebuke of the ways that President Donald J. Trump flouted norms.

The bill would help block presidential interference with the Department of Justice via requirements ensuring transparency and accountability for White House-DOJ communications.

PODA would also help protect our elections from foreign interference. The bill requires that political campaigns be informed of the laws prohibiting foreign support and be obliged to report any attempts of such involvement.

Its hard to imagine any reasonable objection to such provisions.

Similarly, the act would prohibit presidential self-pardons and increase transparency around the presidential pardon process.

Again, both parties have reason to support such a measure. While Trump stretched abuse of the pardon power to the near-breaking point, hes not the only one to have abused it. On his way out the White House door, President Clinton famously pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive indicted for $48 million in tax evasion and for trading with Iran during the hostage crisis, after his ex-wife had contributed generously to the Clinton Library.

While most modern presidents have done all they can to expand executive power, President BidenJoe BidenNicaragua breaks diplomatic relations with Taiwan, recognizes Chinese sovereignty Biden reassures Ukraine's Zelensky of U.S. support amid Russian aggression On The Money Senate risks Trump's ire with debt ceiling deal MORE, to his credit, has collaborated with Congress on PODA measures that he can live with and that would help limit such expansions going forward. That fact, combined with the many provisions that have attracted bipartisan support in the past, opens a unique door for rebuilding the guardrails of our democracy.

And if Senate Republicans eventually use the filibuster to block reforms they have previously sought, that would add one more reason to reform Senate rules to allow for passage of democracy-preserving legislation by majority vote. In any event, yesterdays vote in the House is a critical step toward restoring our Constitutional system of checks and balances.

Dennis Aftergutis a former federal prosecutor.

Read more:
Former Trump officials' coming contempt highlights need for Protecting Our Democracy Act | TheHill - The Hill

By Hannah Albarazi (December 8, 2021, 10:47 PM EST) -- The ex-CEO of capacitor manufacturer Nippon Chemi-Con Corp. invoked his Fifth Amendment right in declining to answer questions about his involvement in a decadelong global conspiracy to fix capacitor prices, a California federal jury heard in a video deposition played Wednesday in a trial over claims U.S. companies overpaid $427 million for the devices.

Lawyers for a class of about 1,800 U.S. companies which claim that NCC, its U.S. subsidiary United Chemi-Con Inc. and other capacitor manufacturers overcharged them as a result of a price-fixing conspiracy between 2002 and 2014 played for the jury the videotaped deposition testimony of...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Follow this link:
Nippon Chemi-Con's Ex-CEO Takes The Fifth In Price-Fix Trial - Law360

We honor our veterans, as we remember why they were willing to risk their lives for our freedoms. Lets reference some of those freedoms from specific amendments in our Constitution:

The First Amendment protects our religions, freedom of speech and the press, and the right to peacefully assemble and address grievances. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures. Our Fifth Amendment states no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Therefore, we raise a crucial and fundamental question about maintaining those freedoms. How can the party of progressive socialist Democrats honor our amendments, as they fully endorse governmental control over individual constitutional freedoms? Additionally, their biased progressive media previously informed us our Constitution is outdated and not valid. Really! American politicians are sworn into office to protect our Constitution, although progressives have conveniently forgotten that our government derives its power only from the consent of the people.

But where was our constitutional protection in Loudoun County schools, when parents spoke up against cruel indoctrination of their children and strongly opposed school books containing pornography? Those parents were immediately silenced by progressive socialist school officials and their media! Include the further weaponization from top progressive government officials, as they declared American parents to be domestic terrorists! What about the arrested father, who protested the school rape of his fifth-grade daughter, which was deliberately hidden by progressive administrators!

Parents from all parties are not afraid of repercussions for refusing to remain silent; if that were not true, we would no longer live in a free country. Such progressive politicians brag about their so-called free stuff, but what have they personally accomplished to secure your freedoms? Will the cost of losing our Constitutional liberties be worth their free stuff? After the Loudoun County debacle, many are now aware that those progressive attacks against parental rights bear no resemblance to the former John F. Kennedy moderate Democratic Party.

It was Benjamin Franklin who said, Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. Consequently, based upon a brave unprecedented human experiment, our Constitution was created for this juvenile nation, by courageous but imperfect Founding Fathers, and humbly provided to us. It allowed extraordinary new freedoms for Americans, while maintaining the rule of law. But it was up to European aristocrats, indentured servants and slaves to understand and institute those Constitutional liberties. Generations of Americans gave of their blood and flesh for their freedoms.

Conversely, why would any current politician, media, or school administrator, ignore or blatantly violate the unparalleled efforts of historical Americans for Constitutional sovereignty? Current Virginians of all parties and races have proven they still have the fortitude to protect such freedoms with their votes, as they loudly rejected the bullying and unlawful Constitutional intrusions of progressive school board members, government officials and media into the education, and liberties of their families. Hopefully our country is listening.

View original post here:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Remember those amendments | Letters To The Editor | thecentralvirginian.com - The Central Virginian