Mediaboss Marketing

The House of Representatives has chosen members toparticipate in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and theyhave presented the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

This is only the third impeachment trial of a presidentin our nations history, with the others occurring in 1868 for Andrew Johnsonand 1999 for Bill Clinton.

Here are eight things you need to know as the Senate prepares to begin Trumps impeachment trial.

Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, administered the oath Thursday to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the trial.

Roberts, in turn, administered the oath to all senators. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced that the trial itself will begin at 1 p.m. Tuesday.

The Clinton impeachment took five weeks, and Johnsons lasted 11 weeks. The Senates impeachment trial rules, adopted in 1986, mandate that the trial should begin at noon and last until the Senate decides to adjourn, Monday through Saturday, until final judgment shall be rendered.

Animpeachment trial is not like a run-of-the-mill trial, but it does have somesimilarities. House managers will act as the prosecution, presenting the casefor impeachment to the senators, whose role is a combination of judge and jury.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the seven members of the House who will serve as the managers, including Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

A team of lawyers will put on the presidents defense, including White House counsel Pat Cipollone; Trumps personal attorney, Jay Sekulow; and former independent counsel Ken Starr, whose investigation into the Whitewater controversy led to Clintons impeachment.

Roberts will preside over the trial, consistent with Article 3, Section 6 of the Constitution, although it is mostly a ceremonial role.

After presiding over Clintons impeachment trial, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, I took a leaf out of [Gilbert and Sullivans comic opera] Iolanthe I did nothing in particular, and did it very well.

When the trial begins, the Senate will adopt a resolution establishing the specific timetable, including the time allotted for each side to present its case, senators to ask questions, and the Senate to consider motions.

At thatpoint, if the Senate follows the general pattern of the Clinton trial, theSenate will vote on a motion to dismiss the impeachment and, if that motionfails, on whether additional witnesses or evidence should be considered.

DuringJohnsons impeachment trial, the prosecution and defense called a total of 41witnesses. During the Clinton trial, three witnesses provided videotaped testimony.

McConnell and several other Senate Republicans have indicated they think the Senate should rely on transcripts of the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the House, while Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and several other Democrats have demanded that witnesses be called to testify.

No. Whilethe Senate does issue a summons to the individual being tried, its impeachmenttrial rules allow for an appearance by the defendant or by his attorney.

TheSenate tried, unsuccessfully, to force Johnson to appear for his impeachmenttrial. The New York Times publishedan account of how Chief Justice Salmon Chase asked the Senate sergeant-at-armsto summon the president.

In aloud voice, and amid the stillness of the whole chamber, he called three times,Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson! but instead the presidentslegal team, including Attorney General Henry Stanbery (whoresigned the day before) and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis,arrived.

Clinton likewise did not appear before the Senate during his trial.

Trump previously indicated he would strongly consider testifying or providing a written statement to the House during its impeachment inquiry, but that didnt happen. Odds are, Trump wont be present at the Senate trial.

Senators are not required to employ a specific standard of proof. During the 1986 impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Harry E. Claiborne, he made a motion to designate beyond a reasonable doubtthe standard in criminal trialsas the standard for his trial.

Afterthe presiding officer ruled that the question of standard of evidence is foreach senator to decide individually, the Senate voted 75 to 17 againstestablishing a mandatory standard.

Similarly, the rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply in an impeachment trial. The Senates impeachment trial rules state that the Senates presiding officer has the authority to rule on questions of evidence.

Any senator, however, may ask that the full Senate vote on such matters. That reflects the Constitutions assignment to the Senate of the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

Senatorshave taken an oath to do impartial justice, according to the Constitution andlaws in all things pertaining to the impeachment trial.

Sen.Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the minority whip, arguedthat some senators have already failed to meet the independent and dignifiedstandard the Constitution envisioned.

Therehave alreadybeen calls for the House managers to move to disqualify senators whoseimpartiality is in question. There is no basis in the Constitution, Senaterules, or history for such an attempt.

The only qualification for participating in a Senate impeachment trial is to be a senator.

Whilethe trial itself will be open to the public, the Senates deliberations afterits conclusion will not be.

The Senate will then come back into public session to vote on each article of impeachment. Senate impeachment trial rules say that the Senate must vote on each article in its entirety, and the Constitution requires the vote of two-thirds of the [senators] present for conviction.

Removalfrom office is automatic upon conviction, and the Senate may vote separatelywhether to disqualify the defendant from serving in any other federal office.

The Constitution explicitly provides, however, that these consequences by the Senate do not, if the defendants conduct is also criminal, prevent Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

In theory, he likely could be retried in the future.Although neither the Constitution nor Senate rules address this issue, and no precedent exists for it, a few legal scholars, such as former Obama administration official Neal Katyal, have pointed out that the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to impeachment proceedings.

A retrial on the same charges, however, would seem highly unlikely, and such a retrial would certainly run counter to the general principle of double jeopardy that someone cannot be tried twice for the same offense.

What is more plausible and likely is that the House would introduce new articles of impeachment, which it could do.

Senate committees may hold hearings in the morning ofeach trial day, but doing any business such as sending bills, nominations, orother matters to the full Senate would require the consent of all senators.

The Senate impeachment rules provide that the chambermust suspend its legislative and executive business while the trial is underway.

The trial should not affect the Supreme Courts oral argument schedule. The court has arguments scheduled Tuesday and Wednesday, but those will conclude by 11 a.m.

Thecourt wont meet again for arguments until Feb. 24. Aside from taking up someof Roberts time in the afternoon, the trial is unlikely to otherwise affect thecourt.

See the original post here:
The Senate Impeachment Trial: 8 Things You Need to Know - Daily Signal

Its January, so most state legislatures are kicking off their sessions. Across state capitols, one issue to monitor is the fallout from the Supreme Courts 2019 landmark decision inKnick v. Township of Scott, a holding which may compel many local governments to rethink how they regulate private property.

Professor Ilya Somin coauthored anamicus briefto theKnickCourt on behalf of the Cato Institute and other organizations, and hesummarizedthe controversy as follows:

The main point at issue inKnickis whether the Court should overrule or limitWilliamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, a 1985 decision that makes it virtually impossible to bring many types of takings cases in federal court. Under Williamson County, a property owner who contends that the government has taken his property and therefore owes "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment, cannot file a case in federal court until he or she has first secured a "final decision" from the relevant state regulatory agency and has "exhausted" all possible remedies in state court. At that point, it is still often impossible to bring a federal claim, because various procedural rules preclude federal courts from reviewing state court decisions in cases where the case was initially brought in state court.

Property owners prevailed last Summer, as explained by my colleague Ilya Shapiro:

[Today] the Supreme Court inKnick v. Township of Scottruled 5-4that a government violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may bring a claim to that effect in federal court at any time . . .Knickrepresents the culmination of many years of challenges toWilliamson County, and years of effort to put property rights (and takings claims specifically) on the same procedural footing as other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

No longer will courts relegate the Takings Clause to second-class status among our rights. Of course, theKnickholding is only the start. Now, states must deal with the constitutional consequences.

As Justice Elena Kagan noted in her dissenting opinion, There are a nearly infinite variety of ways for regulations to affect property interests. One such "way"increasingly popular of lateinvolves local laws that obstruct mineral extraction on private property. Obviously, these measures would result in property owners losing some or all of the value of their subsurface mineral rights.

AfterKnick, affected property owners are much more likely to get their day in federal court to seek just compensation from the government. This access to courts, in turn, changes the dynamic between local governments and regulated entities. Most localities have insufficient resources to either litigate these challenges or provide just compensation (if they lost in court). The upshot is thatKnickgives local governments a strong incentive to revisit recently passed roadblocks to oil and gas production.

Which brings us to Colorado, among the biggest beneficiaries of the recent revolution in American oil and gas production ushered in by technological breakthroughs in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing. At present, the industryannually createsmore than $30 billion in wealth for the state.

A mere months before the Supreme Courts decision inKnick, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed SB19-181, a massive overhaul to the states oil and gas regulatory regime. Among other measures, the law provides local governments with increased authority to limit subsurface property rights.

InKnicks wake, some Colorado officials are asking hard questions about SB19-181. One of them is Sen. Kevin Lundberg. Almost a decade ago, I worked with Sen. Lundberg on the states implementation of the Clean Air Act, and I know hes a serious lawmaker.

Last month, Lundberg led the Republican Study Committee of Colorado in a series of hearings on how SB19-181 will function in a post-Knickworld. His findings are sobering: Potentially, thousands of Colorado citizens who are mineral interest owners can have their day in Federal court and seek literally trillions of dollars.

In hiswriteupof the hearings, Sen. Lundberg correctly observed that Something has to give . . . If [state] policy makers are smart, they will unwind SB19-181 before it becomes a crisis for the entire state.

During the new legislative session, Sen. Lundberg promised more hearings on the matter. Coloradans should hope his colleagues give this matter the attention it deserves. Even if the state lawmakers dont act, I suspect that municipal and county governments in Colorado will think twice before they exercise their SB19-181 authority to constrain property rights.

This article by William Yeatman first appeared at the Cato Institute.

Image: Reuters.

Read this article:
Local Governments May Soon Be Forced To Rethink How They Use Private Property - The National Interest Online

I watched the TV piece on Joe McCarthy with great interest the other night. I had reason to. Of all the hundreds of articles I have written over the past 70 years for the T&G and other periodicals, none stirred such a response as one I wrote in 1953 about McCarthy.

It was titled MCCARTHY SHOULD BE EXPELLED. Today that doesnt surprise, given what we know now about McCarthy and his slimy sidekick, Roy Cohn. But 75 years ago it dealt with an issue of astonishing destructive power. In the space of less than three years, McCarthy and Cohn divided the nation dangerously, crippled the U.S. Senate, destroyed important careers in the State Department and made the U.S. Army look ridiculous. All done with a series of blatant lies lies easily refuted but strangely persuasive to millions of Americans.

Joe McCarthy proved one thing: you dont have to be in the White House to rip the country apart. You can do it with a megaphone if you understand the target and the timing. His target in 1951-54 was communism. He was only a junior senator from Wisconsin, but he was eerily able to sell the notion to the nation that the United States was imperiled by a massive Communist conspiracy centered in the State Department and the Treasury. The facts, amply proven many times in the ensuing years, is that the leftist influence in the government was limited to a handful of individuals. Unfortunately, a few of those, such as Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, were prominent and made for scary headlines.

The McCarthy piece on TV did a good job with the history of the time. But it didnt quite convey the chilling atmosphere that pervaded the land the feeling.that something ominous was imminent. For McCarthys true believers it was the insidious threat of communism, ready to subvert the nation from within. For those opposed, it was the destructive, malign McCarthy-Cohn crusade itself that posed the greatest peril. The nation watched in fascination as prominent public figures went up on television to the various hearings.

Are you or have you ever belonged to a Communist organization was the routine question posed by McCarthy to any number of individuals. Not all could answer in the negative, a fact duly exploited by the far-right press. Those who called on the Fifth Amendment or the rule of law got little support or sympathy from McCarthy and Cohn.

McCarthy was a toxic subject for many of the nations newspapers. My own piece caused a stir at 20 Franklin St., where the T&G was then housed.

I had decided, after months of McCarthys outrages, that the paper should declare itself on the issue. I wrote it without consulting the higher-ups, which in those days meant George F. Booth, editor, publisher and part owner of the newspapers. Booth and his fellow colleagues apparently were not yet ready to condemn McCarthy, and my piece floated in the wind for a week or two. Then, finally, Mr. Booth sent word that it could be published, but not as an editorial. So it came out as an article with my byline. As I noted earlier, never before or since have I experienced such a reaction both pro and anti McCarthy. You had to be there to appreciate it.

I dug out that old article to refresh my memory. It was hardly the firebrand grenade of 1953, but just a summary of the main charges against him familiar enough today. What seems amazing even now is the depth of the division in the country. People on both sides could not understand how their friends and relatives could possibly hold such views. Many a family meal was broken up in acrimony.

I listed some of the misdeeds committed by McCarthy his arrogant handling of his investigating committee with his one-man hearings, his brow-beating of witnesses and his fantastic and false claims.. . Joe McCarthy stands up in the Senate and has the gall to claim that the nations fate is his own ... that he and he alone knows what is good for America.

Particularly disappointing was the craven way the U.S. Senate responded to McCarthy. Only one senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine had the guts to condemn him on the floor of the Senate. I remember cornering Sen. Leverett Saltonstall and plying him with questions. Didnt he see the damage McCarthy was doing to the Senate and the country and the Constitution? But Saltonstall, no crusader, refused to follow Senator Smiths lead. He thought the thing would play out in time.

Eventually, of course, it did play out and the Senate eventually voted, 67 to 22, to censure him. And with that, McCarthy reign of terror was over. But he left a lasting impression. Populist movements can pose a danger to constitutional government.

More here:
Al Southwick: Joe McCarthy and me - News - Worcester Telegram

Dr. Jeremiah Stamler has a little problem at work. You know the kind: that checklist item that you cant quite seem to check, the one part of the big project that you havent yet nailed down.

You cant slam the door shut on the work until you get answers.

Stamler knows the problem is out there, just waiting for him. And, frankly, thats just the kind of thing he thrives on.

Jerry Stamler is a professor emeritus and active research doctor at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine who recently turned 100 years old.

His problem is cheese.

Stamlers specialty is preventive medicine in fact, he helped invent the field. He did pioneering research into the causes of heart disease, and coined the term risk factors to describe circumstantial and genetic contributors that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. While working for Richard J. Daleys Public Health Department in the 1960s, he developed the Heart Disease Control Program, aimed at educating the public and bringing focus to issues the city still grapples with, such as the availability of healthy food in poor neighborhoods.

Hes an early adopter of whats known today as the Mediterranean diet, and his own best advertisement, a long-living testament to the lifestyle changes he advocates.

Currently, hes one of only a tiny handful of scientists over age 90 to have an active NIH grant for research.

Oh, and hes a WWII veteran and is partially responsible for the demise of the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee.

We have immense amounts of things we should be grateful to Dr. Stamler for, says Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones, chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern, because hes improved our health as a nation and a world, but hes also affected our society.

Lloyd-Jones points out that Stamler, who founded the department Lloyd-Jones now presides over, has retained 110% of his mental acuity. Hes forgotten more than I will ever know, and I dont think hes forgotten very much.

But, aside from being an obvious outlier in the healthy-habits-plus-great-genes department, the record of Stamlers life reveals another core characteristic that clearly fuels him. Hes charming, and smart, but he wont back down. Not for anything. Not for big food companies or basic human intransigence or even Congress. Not for the toll age takes, not even for time.

He has made standing up for things his stock-in-trade.

I think its a measure of his character, says Lloyd-Jones. Its remarkable. Hes my hero.

Stamler was born in Brooklyn in 1919, and grew up in West Orange, N.J., the child of Russian immigrants. From an early age, he was suspicious of mass-market food. The loaf of white bread is anathema, he says. My father got to this country, saw the white bread and was ready to get back on the boat and go home! Instead, he grew up with hearty rye breads and got an early start eating whole grains. Other healthy habits came easy, he says: I never liked butter. I dont know why. It mustve been something in the blood, intuitive.

After medical school, he did what most of his contemporaries were doing and entered the Army. Near the end of World War II, he was sent overseas: To Bermuda, he says. So I spent a lovely year in Bermuda, my wife came with me, and it was very nice. Shortly thereafter, the war ended and Stamler, like thousands of other GIs, headed home to launch the next phase of his life.

He knew he wanted that life to be in research, and in 1947, found a place to pursue that work, taking a position at Michael Reese Hospital in Bronzeville under pioneering cardiology researcher Dr. Louis Katz. Dr. Katz told me, Why the hell do you want to go into research? says Stamler. You never win. When you first discover something, people will say I dont believe it. Then you do more research and verify it and theyll say, yes, but Then you do more research, verify it further and theyll say, I knew it all the time. And he was right.

Undeterred, Stamler and his first wife, Rose, who trained as a sociologist but went on to become a major researcher in the fields of cardiovascular disease and hypertension in her own right, moved to Chicago in 1947. They offered me a $200-a-month fellowship, Stamler says. In those days, that was a fortune.

Stamlers research involved examining the effects of cholesterol and other factors suspected as drivers of cardiovascular disease. I was always interested in the heart artery problem. Why did human beings with diabetes get more heart artery disease? Whats the relation of habitual lifestyle, fat intake, saturated fat intake, cholesterol intake, salt intake, with cardiovascular disease. The interplay between multiple factors. And of course we were all interested in tobacco even way back then.

Stamler studied his theories on animals. I was feeding cholesterol to chickens, he says. We could test everything that we suspected might have an impact, except smoking. And over time, he helped discover and confirm many of the things we now take for granted: High cholesterol and high blood pressure are linked to cardiovascular disease.

Stamlers interest in these issues didnt stop at the merely scientific, however. He had long been interested in social causes he and Rose had met at student meetings during WWII, while he was still in college, and her work leaned strongly into social justice. He realized that his work had vast implications in the world outside the laboratory. From 1948 on, as our work accelerated, he says, we were more inclined to translate our findings into recommendations for the public.

That approach began to earn him a few enemies. Here in Chicago, we had the North American Meat Institute, they were barking at me all the time. They had a very simple view: Why dont you do research, write papers, publish them and shut up? We didnt feel that was an appropriate posture for people doing research on a scientific problem of great public health importance, to do the research and then bury it. What the hell is the point?

Big tobacco, big food companies and other interest groups werent too happy about Stamlers findings either. He didnt care. I began to find the best ways to express all this to the public, and we decided that the best way is the risk factor concept, he says. A set of well-defined traits, easily measured, frequently occurring, which when present, particularly in combination, are greatly associated with increased risk.

Risk factors, which represented something the public could understand and act to change, changed the face of how Americans thought about cardiovascular health. The question was, what happens when you modify them, control them, lower them? Stamler says. Does the cigarette smoker at age 60, after more than 40 years of smoking, benefit from quitting smoking and lowering cholesterol? The answer is, it isnt too late.

Stamler was driven by a desire to see that knowledge put into practice by the public. Its a very important message, he says. From a practical point of view, its the only message.

In 1958, Stamler brought that activist approach to public health to city government, taking a position in Daleys Department of Public Health. I rolled up my sleeves and went formally to work, he says. A different kind of work. Quite different from feeding cholesterol to chickens.

Reluctantly, he gave up animal research and turned his attention to the pressing concerns of the citys health. We started with rheumatic fever prevention in kids, he says. We developed a hypertension control program, coronary prevention evaluation program, all right there in Mr. Daleys Health Department. He actually used a picture of me with one of the participants in the programs in one of his political campaigns, to show how up-to-date and modern his administration was.

Stamler also looked to tackle Chicagos diet: First and foremost, we worked to improve the mix of foods that were readily available in the supermarket. We encouraged broiling rather than frying, roasting on a rotisserie rather than frying, modest portion sizes.

Chicagos legendary steakhouses? They didnt exactly fit Stamlers program.

It may be OK to victimize a tourist by selling him a 16-ounce steak, he says, but for the natives, lets make it a 4- or 5-ounce steak. Lets encourage fish and seafood, vegetables and fruits, whole grains. Not that were indifferent to the outside, but we feel a first responsibility to locals.

But it wasnt steakhouses or even food lobbyists who posed Stamlers next challenge. In 1965, he was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee, a congressional committee aimed at ferreting out suspected communist sympathizers in America. The committee was known for subpoenaing a range of people, from the entertainment industry, academia and other spheres of public life.

They had informants who told them who to call, says Tom Sullivan, an attorney with Jenner & Block who worked on Stamlers HUAC case, and the people took the Fifth Amendment and that was the end of it. It ruined many lives and employment and wreaked havoc. The consequences for refusing to answer the committees questions was blacklisting, and in Stamlers case, Sullivan says, Mayor Daley would have fired him immediately.

Stamler chose not to exercise a right against self-incrimination, instead choosing not to answer the committees questions to him by challenging its constitutional right to do so. Sullivan and his team filed suit against the committee on behalf of Stamler and his colleague, Yolanda Hall, who worked as a nutritionist in his department and was also an outspoken activist on issues such as fair housing and civil rights. The committee found the pair in contempt of Congress. The clients were facing years in jail for contempt of Congress, says Sullivan, and Jerry Stamler decided he was willing to take that chance, to make this a test case.

Litigation followed, for 8 1/2 years, during which Stamler continued to champion public health but rarely spoke publicly about the court battle. In late 1973, the case settled, with the committee, which had begun to lose steam, backing down and Stamlers side agreeing to withdraw its complaint.

In 1975, HUAC was disbanded. The case, says Sullivan, was the decisive factor in ending it.

Those who know Stamler best say the story isnt out of character. He has a mantra, says Lloyd-Jones, just apply firm, steady pressure. When his scientific discoveries or medical recommendations meet resistance, Lloyd-Jones says, his response is always the same: Keep smiling. But dont back down. He knows that if you apply firm, steady pressure over time, the data will win the day. If we make sure our assertions are grounded in the very best science, the truth will out.

In 1972, Stamler was appointed as the founding director of the Department of Community Health and Preventive Medicine at Northwestern, where his research continued, and he took on the role of mentor to a stream of new cardiologists and researchers.

The work has never let up, though Stamler has decided where to draw the line in one arena: He sort of stopped advancing in his tech use at fax machines, says Lloyd-Jones, so when we send him papers to read, we email them to his assistant, they print them out, he takes the hard copy, he marks them up extensively in pen, and he faxes them back. Currently, hes working with a team on metabolomics, the study of products created by the bodys metabolic processes.

Those faxed notes, Lloyd-Jones says, are sharp as ever. Hes really at his core a scientist. Hes always about taking the data and what it is giving you and not over-interpreting it.

Stamler sticks to his guns at home as well. We eat a lot of egg whites in this house, he says. And Im not saying that to make nice with the Egg Board. I like hard-boiled egg white with tomato in a good sandwich with whole wheat bread.

Diet is key to good health, he says, and happiness is important too. Stamler shares homes in New York, Italy and Chicago with his second wife, Gloria, a childhood friend with whom he reconnected after Rose died in 1998.

Though age has robbed him of mobility and he now uses a wheelchair, Stamler says he has one answer for people who wonder whether hell retire: No.

He loves it, says Gloria.

And, of course, hes not quite finished. If you think about it, he says, I should have retired about 30 years ago. But Ive kept going, on the basis that theres still some fascinating stuff out there that we havent touched very well.

Like, for instance, cheese a supposed villain when it comes to heart health. There may be more there than meets the eye, says Stamler. Its too early to say. People say Why are you still working? Its intriguing questions like that. Whats the bottom line with cheese? It just keeps you intrigued and going on.

For the scientist, at least, cheese has a benefit. Maybe even, at this point, a touch of symbiosis.

Im annoyed with my ignorance about cheese, Stamler says, contemplating his next move. I havent taken the time to get that clear. It sounds simple, but doing it well is a big job.

Read more from the original source:
At age 100, the father of preventive medicine is still going strong as living proof that he was right all along - yoursun.com

BOSTON 2019s biggest stories in Massachusetts played out in the courtroom.

Dozens of wealthy and privileged parents some of them Hollywood stars were ensnared in a nationwide college admissions bribery scandal. A judge tossed a sexual assault case against actor Kevin Spacey after his accuser refused to testify.

The states highest court upheld Michelle Carters manslaughter conviction for sending her suicidal boyfriend a barrage of text messages urging him to kill himself. Pharmaceutical company executives were found guilty of bribing doctors to prescribe a highly addictive opioid. And Massachusetts attorney general launched fresh legal challenges to the Trump administrations immigration policies.

A look back at those and other top stories:

COLLEGE BRIBERY

Federal prosecutors dubbed it Operation Varsity Blues, and the scope was staggering: affluent and influential parents indicted for paying bribes to rig their childrens test scores or get them admitted to elite universities as recruited athletes. Desperate Housewives star Felicity Huffman pleaded guilty and served two weeks in prison, but Full House actress Lori Loughlin and her fashion designer husband maintained their innocence and are expected to stand trial in 2020.

KEVIN SPACEY

Prosecutors dropped a criminal case against Spacey alleging he groped an 18-year-old man at a Nantucket bar in 2016. The House of Cards actors accuser invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify about text messages from the night of the alleged encounter. Los Angeles prosecutors later tossed a separate sexual battery charge against Spacey after the accuser in that case died.

TEXTING SUICIDE

The states highest court upheld Michelle Carters 2017 involuntary manslaughter conviction in the suicide death of her despondent boyfriend, to whom she had sent insistent text messages urging him to take his own life, and the state Parole Board denied her request for early release. Carters lawyers maintain her texts were free speech and have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which hasnt yet decided whether it will take up the case.

OPIOID KICKBACK SCHEME

A jury convicted a pharmaceutical company founder of racketeering conspiracy for paying doctors millions in bribes to prescribe his companys highly addictive fentanyl spray even using a stripper-turned-sales-rep to give a physician a lap dance. Convicted along with John Kapoor, the 76-year-old former chairman of Insys Therapeutics, were four other ex-employees of the Chandler, Arizona-based company and the former exotic dancer.

TAKING TRUMP TO COURT

Massachusetts Democratic attorney general, Maura Healey, and the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union mounted fresh legal challenges of the Trump administrations tough policies on immigration. Lawsuits in federal court in Boston highlighted some detainees need for medical treatment and the governments strict cap on the number of refugees fleeing disaster and strife abroad.

INDICTED MAYOR

Jasiel Correia had seemed almost bulletproof. In March, voters in Fall River reelected the embattled mayor after he was charged in 2018 with defrauding investors in an app he developed to bankroll a lavish lifestyle. But Correias political good fortunes ran out federal authorities indicted the 27-year-old for allegedly stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from marijuana companies. In November, voters unceremoniously threw him out of office.

2020 FREE-FOR-ALL

Continuing Massachusetts tradition of producing presidential candidates, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren jumped into the race for the Democratic nomination early, followed by U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, who exited in August. Much later, former governor Deval Patrick, the states first black governor, declared his candidacy. Ex-Gov. William Weld, a Republican, launched a challenge to President Donald Trump. And Democratic congressman Joe Kennedy III, a grandson of Robert F. Kennedy, announced a primary run against U.S. Sen. Edward Markey.

PILGRIM NUCLEAR PLANT

Nearly half a century after it began generating electricity, the Pilgrim nuclear power plant permanently shut down. Environmentalists had clamored for decades for the closure of the states only remaining reactor. The decommissioning of the complex in Plymouth, which came online in 1972, left Seabrook in New Hampshire and Millstone in Connecticut as New Englands only still-operating commercial nuclear plants.

MENTHOL, R.I.P.

Responding to growing concerns about the health effects of vaping, Massachusetts became the first state to ban flavored tobacco and nicotine vaping products. Anti-smoking groups hailed the ban, which restricts the sale and consumption of flavored vaping products and will do the same for menthol cigarettes starting June 1, 2020. It came after Republican Gov. Charlie Baker declared a public health emergency and imposed a temporary ban.

AGAINST ALL ODDS

Massachusetts third casino, Encore Boston Harbor, opened in the gritty suburb of Everett after months of uncertainty. Las Vegas-based Wynn Resorts glitzy $2.6 billion complex had been beset by legal troubles and a failed attempt to sell the complex to rival MGM Resorts. Encore features a 671-room bronzed-toned hotel tower, a gambling floor with 3,100 slot machines and 231 table games, and 15 bars and restaurants.

___

Follow Bill Kole on Twitter at https://twitter.com/billkole.

Go here to see the original:
Top stories of 2019 played out in court in Massachusetts - The Daily News of Newburyport