Mediaboss Marketing

On January 6, 2021, from a parking garage under the Capitol Visitor Center, thenVice President Mike Pence ordered the military to defend the Capitol against a violent insurrection. According to a taped deposition of General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pence issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders to him and Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller: Get the military down here. Get the Guard here. Put down this situation.

This is a problemone that has been overshadowed by the larger events of January 6. The constitutional authority to call out the military to defend the Capitol is vested in the president of the United States, not in the vice president. Why did Pence seize constitutional authority that wasnt his? The country needs answers to this question, and it needs them from Pence, not from his chief of staff or his counsel.

In ordinary circumstances, Pences actions would be unconstitutional. Indeed, a vice president who usurped the presidents constitutional authority, and the Cabinet and military officers who followed his orders, could be committing an impeachable offense. But these were no ordinary circumstances: With Pence huddled in a secure location protected by his security detail, his actions were almost certainly justified.

Read: The January 6 Committees most damning revelation yet

Constitutional government depends on following the law, but emergency circumstances may provide for what the 17th-century political philosopher John Locke called prerogative power: power that in ordinary circumstances is unlawful, but that in extraordinary circumstances is warranted. There is a long-standing debate about whether the public should view such power as constitutional because necessary or as extra-constitutional but justified. In Federalist No. 23, Alexander Hamilton argued that people should see emergency power as constitutional because the circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite. The Constitution, Hamilton insisted, must provide the lawful power for its preservation.

In contrast, Thomas Jefferson argued that people ought to recognize that emergency power is extra-constitutional but justified. As Jefferson famously wrote in a letter to John B. Colvinthe author of the early-19th-century book The Magistrates Guide, and Citizens Counsellor, who was then writing about Aaron Burrs treasonA strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. For Jefferson, preserving the nation was more important than a scrupulous adherence to written law.

Yet, as Jefferson also insisted, the officer who exercises emergency power must justify his actions to his fellow citizens generally. For Jefferson, the good officer must throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives. Whether one sees emergency power from the perspective of Hamilton (constitutional because necessary) or Jefferson (extra-constitutional but justified), it is crucial that the officer who exercises emergency power justify himself to the public. The public must know what constitutional ends the officer thought he was serving and why the circumstances commanded extraordinary action. But Pence has retreated to silence, allowing some proxies to speak for him while ducking the crucial constitutional questions that surround his actions on January 6.

Did Pence think he was acting to preserve the constitutional transfer of power and save the country when it was in danger? Did Pence think that President Donald Trump was threatening the peaceful transfer of power? General Milley and those who followed Pences commands seem to think this. But the public should not have to guess at Pences motiveshe has a constitutional obligation to explain why he thought the nation was in peril and how he acted to obviate that peril.

Read: Mike Pence is trying to send a message

American history is replete with claims to emergency power. Whether people think they are justified depends on the circumstances and how they are attached to larger constitutional ends.

In the opening months of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, called up state militias, and blocked southern ports and harbors. Critics thought many of these actions unconstitutional and unjustified. Lincoln insisted that they were necessary to preserve constitutional ends and therefore justified. In a special message to Congress on July 4, 1861, Lincoln explained his actions to the people and Congress, while also asking for congressional approval. Squarely taking up the question of extra-constitutional action, Lincoln asked with a rhetorical flourish, Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?

Similarly, on 9/11, just after two hijacked civilian planes were flown into the World Trade Center, Vice President Dick Cheney, from a secure location in Washington, D.C., acted to prevent further attacks on the United States and keep the government operational under emergency conditions while President George W. Bush was on Air Force One. (With so many unknowns, the Secret Service thought Bush was safest aboard Air Force One rather than in D.C.) While there is dispute over whether Cheney issued the order before or after authorization from Bush, Cheney did ask Bush to authorize him to order the military targeting of civilian planes if necessary, as communications aboard Air Force One were spotty. Bush gave the authorization, which happily did not need to be carried out.

Americans can understand why Cheney exercised such power. They can understand why it was justified. Cheney was not grabbing power for himself, but issuing a truly awful order that was seen as necessary to prevent further casualties and, especially, an attack on the White House and Congress. People also understand that Cheney asked the president for authorization because Bush was unable to discharge his duties.

In contrast, Pence has given us no justification for or explanation of why he seized constitutional authority that was not lawfully his. Article II of the Constitution provides that in the event of the presidents removal, resignation, death, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office, those powers devolve on the vice president. If Pence thought Trump was unable or unwilling to discharge the constitutional powers and duties of his office, that informs the constitutional analysis of his decision. The formal constitutional mechanism for suspending such a president is by way of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. It provides that the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet may convey to Congress a written declaration of the presidents inability, allowing the vice president to assume those powers as acting president.

Given the circumstances, following the formal terms of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment was nearly impossible. With the Capitol under siege, Pences actions were probably justified. We can surmise that he sought to protect the lives of the people in Congress and to ensure that he remained at the Capitol to officially preside over the counting of electoral votes. But Pence himself should explain to America why he feared for those in Congress, why he would not leave with the Secret Service, and why the sitting president was unable to carry out his duties. The president, after all, was not incapacitated as far as we know.

Justifying Pences actions turns almost entirely on Trumps state of mind both before and on January 6something Pence is uniquely situated to speak to. We can guess much of what Pence would say. Still, his explanation will help us better understand the events that led to that day. And it will very likely require him to explain that he acted to thwart a sitting presidents unlawful attempt to stay in power.

In retreating to silence, Pence is acting to preserve his own interests, not the countrys. One assumes that he does not want to explain why he used emergency power because it will implicate Trumpand doing so will make Pence unpopular with Republicans. This is the sort of self-serving use of authority that makes emergency power so dangerous.

To put it plainly: Pence either acted extra-constitutionally to preserve the constitutional transfer of power or unlawfully seized power from a sitting president who was acting in accord with his constitutional responsibilities. Pence is trying to have the best of both options, but those two components dont square. The January 6 committee should force his hand.

See the original post:
Mike Pence Owes the Country an Explanation - The Atlantic

Donald Trump is the epitome of a rich entitled white man. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his fathers wealth and power afforded him tremendous advantages in life. This led to Trumps exaggerated sense of entitlement and his eventual narcissism. His outsized self-importance affects how he reasons, and how he handles life situations and relationships.

The former president recently pleaded the Fifth Amendment in the New York case where he is being investigated for lying about his wealth. As a narcissist, Trump must make himself appear wealthier than he really is, so he lies to get on the lists of the countrys richest individuals. He then lies so he doesnt have to pay taxes.

Trump would be a nightmare under oath because he exaggerates, fabricates and would repeatedly commit perjury because he doesnt know how to tell the truth.

He has taunted others for invoking their Fifth Amendment right, so his hypocrisy in taking the Fifth himself is lost on no one.

The mob takes the Fifth Amendment, Trump said in 2016. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

Because of his narcissism and desire for power, Trump stole top-secret, confidential documents and lied about what he took to the National Archives. Nor did he return said documents when requested. He thinks he can do whatever he wants because for most of his life hes gotten away with doing just that, and he thinks he still can.

But the noose is tightening around his neck, and Black people are at the forefront of those wielding that noose. A Black woman, New York Attorney General Letitia James, is prosecuting Trump for crimes related to his business practices. So far hes pleaded the Fifth 400 times in response to her teams questioning.

In Georgia, a Black woman, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, is investigating election fraud by Trump and his inner circle. In Washington, D.C., the January 6 House Select Committee Chair is Bennie Thompson, a Black man. Now even the sleeping giant, the U.S. Department of Justice, is investigating Trump.

When Trump goes to trial in New York, Georgia and Washington, D.C., he will face justice before a jury that will probably include Black people. He will not be prosecuted in MAGA territory, but in areas rich with Democrats and rich with Black people.

I do not see how Trumps rich, white-boy status is going to protect him from the ever-tightening noose, because that does not resonate with Black people. Pleading the Fifth Amendment does not get you a get out of jail free card it just means that you are not testifying against yourself. In the mind of most jurors, it is an admission of guilt.

Trumps multiple public statements will damn him. He does not need to testify; just play recordings of him speaking. In addition, as a narcissist, Trump has thrown his closest supporters under the bus to protect himself. He must have taught this to his children and wife, because one of them appears to be the confidential informant who provided information as to the stolen documents and his hidden private safe. Can you imagine Ivanka and Melania giving up their freedom for his?

Reginald J. Clyne, Esq.

For the sake of this country, the former president and his cronies must go to jail. A group of historians recently met with President Joe Biden and told him that our democracy is under attack. Trumps crazy supporters are calling for civil war.

Trumps team should and must go to jail to save our democracy, but like supporters of the Confederacy, MAGA supporters will always believe in his legitimacy and his racist view of making America great again.

Unfortunately, sending Trump to jail wont change the minds of those white men who feel they are losing ground in this country to a growing minority population.

Reginald J. Clyne is a Miami trial lawyer who has practiced in some of the largest law firms in the United States. Clyne has been in practice since 1987 and tries cases in both state and federal court. He has lived in Africa, Brazil, Honduras and Nicaragua.

Read more here:
The noose is tightening around Donald Trump - The Miami Times

When George W. Bush announcedthat the United States had begun military action in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks orchestrated by al-Qaeda, he emphasized that the mission would also focus on providing humanitarian aid to the citizens of Afghanistan. "The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies," he explained. "As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine, and supplies." The hypocrisy of a military strike framed as a humanitarian mission was on full display. For those of us who could immediately see through Bush's hubris and his malignant American exceptionalism, the global war on terror epitomized the toxic nature of America's culture of political hypocrisy.

It all seems quaint now.

Today we live in a world where chanting "lock her up" at Hillary Clinton for her handling of sensitive documents runs in tandem withoutrage overan FBI seizure of classified documents as "un-American;" where unsubstantiated concerns over election fraud are best handled byattempting to overthrowthe democratic process; where you chant "Blue Lives Matter"except during the Jan. 6 insurrectionor when youattack the FBI; where invoking the Fifth amendment meansa person is definitely guilty, except when you do it; where you call for bipartisan unity on one day andthen stoke party divisionthe next.

It's actually kind of exhausting to try to list even the best highlights of Trump-era hypocrisy. Ascolumnist Don Kahlewrites,since the election of Trump, "GOP hypocrisy has become strategic."

For some scholars, the Bush-style hypocrisy of the War on Terror is considered indispensable for the functioning of the world order. In fact, University of Cambridge professorDavid Runciman arguesthat politics isn't possible without hypocrisy. For Machiavelli expert Ruth Grant,hypocrisy is essential to politicsbecause a political life and a moral life are simply incompatible.

For others, hypocrisy threatens democracy because, as political science professor Austin Saratputs it, hypocrisy "erodes trust and breeds cynicism." For Sarat, Trump's extreme and excessive hypocrisy poses a danger to the future of U.S. democracy because he has normalized it and, thus far, not been held accountable for it: "He has been a master of saying one thing and doing another. He has held up others to ridicule and then done the very things for which he shamed them."

But that's the thing. Whether or not you justify hypocrisy in politics, you have to admit that Trump-style hypocrisy is entirely different from previous examples. Sure, Thomas Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" while unashamedly owning slaves. Lyndon Johnson said "we will seek no wider war" in reference to Vietnam and then did just that. Richard Nixon said "I am not a crook" when he was. Bill Clinton stated he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky when he had. But not one of the above examples ofhypocritical presidentscomes even remotely close to the hypocrisy of Trump.

Trump hasn't just been a hyper-hypocrite. He hasn't just mastered it; he has redefined the very meaning of it. Part of this shift lies in the fact that Trump may be the chief hypocrite, but every single one of his political allies and supporters is one too. You literally cannot support Trump or work alongside him and not be a hypocrite. In fact, if there is one recognizable element of the Trump party platform it is collective, weaponized hypocrisy. Without the hypocrisy, there literally is nothing else left.

Before we decide what to do about the new turn in political hypocrisy, we first have to understand it. Here are four key changes to keep in mind.

To say that the hypocrisy of Trump and his supporters is flagrant, shameless and extreme is to state the obvious.

In April 2017, Chauncey Devegawrote an essay for Salonin which he called Trump's hypocrisy "flagrant." The trouble is that when you used a word like "flagrant" to describe excess Trumpist behavior in 2017, you ran out of effective adjectives by 2022.

But the in-your-face style of Trumpist hypocrisy isn't just limited to the hypocrite-in-chief. Perhaps there is no better example of the mass approach to Trumpist hypocrisy than its contradictions over health care. One day, pro-Trump Republicans are freaking out over needing to wear a mask during a pandemic; the next they are mandating control over women's health.One ad targeting the hypocrisy of the "pro-life" positionpointed out that Republicans only care about policing women's bodies, not supporting them or their children.

So, we have both a spate of inconsistencies and a mass movement practicing them, but the additional in-your-face feature of Trumpist hypocrisy is the lack of shame. Think, for example, of all of those Trump nominated members of the Supreme Courtwho blatantly misled the public during their confirmation hearings about their position on Roe v. Wade, but also showed zero remorse, embarrassment, or even concern that doing so was not just hypocritical; it was deliberately deceptive.

Trumpist hypocrisy is just there all the time, in your face, and proudly on display.

Here's where it gets really weird, because while it is on display, openly, all the time; it is also invisible. The difference is that some of us see it and some of us can't.

Henry Farrell and Martha Finnemoreargued in a 2017 essay for Foreign Affairthat it was a mistake to consider Trump a hypocrite. "Trump's No Hypocrite," they claimed. Rather, they described him as inconsistent rather than hypocritical. "Hypocrisy requires a minimal degree of self-awareness," they argued, as well as "clear understanding of both one's own interests and of public norms." Their point was that Trump simply couldn't even "recognize" his hypocritical behavior, which meant he wasn't actually a true hypocrite.

Here's the catch and it explains why some of us see the hypocrisy and why those who practice it don't. Farrell and Finnemore's point rests on the premise that hypocrisy depends on being aware of a moral compass and deliberately not using it. But that's the thing about the new hypocrisy:Its moral compass is its hypocrisy.

Once you recognize that the issue here isn't failing to effectively compare one's actions to an ethical code, but rather, embracing selfish, self-serving, irrational, inconsistent and illogical behavior as an ethical code, then you get why those who practice it can't see it. Inside the Trump hypocrisy bubble, nothing that is done by them can be judged against an external ethics. Therefore, they simply can't possibly be a hypocrite.

For the Trumpist hypocrite, everyone else who doesn't agree with you is the real hypocrite, but you never are. Sure, it's absolutely batshit logic and an ethical code that lacks anything resembling ethics, but that's how it works.

In 2017, professors Emile Bruneau, Nour Kteily and Emily Falkpublished a groundbreaking studyon the power of revealing hypocrisy. Studying how communities commonly resort to collective blame after mass violence like whenindividuals blame all Muslims for acts of mass violence committed by a small group of Muslims they tested a range of interventions that could be used to disrupt that habit. What they found was that showing individuals that it was hypocritical to blame all Muslims for the acts of a few, when they don't blame all Christians for the acts of a few, was a highly effective tactic.

The catch, though, was that the study wasn't looking at Trumpist hypocrisy but hypocrisy in general.What is important to note, though, from the study, is that for the average person, it is possible to become aware of one's hypocrisy and alter one's beliefs. That simply isn't true in Trumpland.

Sarat notesthat one of the core problems with Trumpist hypocrisy is the fact that calling it out just doesn't make any difference.He points to a piecein the philosophy and politics blog, Vim, that argues that the reason why calling out Trumpist hypocrisy doesn't matter is because "charging a fascist with hypocrisy is especially pointless." This is so because fascism requires that exposing its inconsistencies and incoherence has no effect on its adherents. Whether we want to use the F-word to describe Trumpist hypocrites or not, we do have to agree that calling it out has made absolutely no difference whatsoever to its grasp on American society.

If you have any doubts, check out the work of Jordan Klepper, who has done brilliant work satirizing the absurdity of Trumpist hypocrisy. His recurring segment for "The Daily Show with Trevor Noah" "Jordan Klepper Fingers the Pulse" has him out in the field interviewing Trump supporters and literally repeating their hypocrisy back at them. In every case, the interviewee hears Klepper ironically explain their hypocrisy. They then respond by unironically repeating it back to him. The contrast between Klepper cleverly exposing the hypocrisy and the hypocrite happily and obliviously owning it is stunning.As one viewer quips, "This would be so much funnier if it wasn't so existentially terrifying."

When you think about it, Trumpism doesn't just practice hypocrisy it needs it. How else do you explain defending democracy by literally trying to destroy it? Whether attacking pizza or the vice president, this is a politics grounded in unethical inconsistencies and immoral irrationality.

Hypocrisy has now become the signature feature of Trumpian politics. In fact, every single party platform is rife with it. There is literally nothing else.

But it's worse than that. Because Trumpist hypocrisy has also overtaken mostanti-Trump politicsas well. In race after race this primary season, non-Trumpy candidates have literally defined themselves over and against Trumpist hypocrisy to the detriment of offering alternative policy platforms.

It's not entirely clear how we escape the vicious cycle of constantly needing to respond to the latest hypocritical move of the Trump camp. It isn't wise to ignore it, but it's also problematic to let it take up the whole room. It sparks legitimate outrage but also sucks the air out of productive political engagement. And given the fact that signaling it isn't going to affect those who practice it, giving it too much energy isn't tipping any political scales.

It may well be that the most effective challenge to Trumpian hypocrisy comes from satire, like the Klepper segments highlighted above, since satire's creative use of irony is uniquely suited to revealing ironic behaviors. In one excellent example, Trevor Noah offereda highly effective takedownof Trumpist media when he ran tape of Fox News covering Hillary Clinton, but paired it with footage of Trump.

There is a real benefit to allowing comedians to be the ones to skewer the hypocrites. They are experts in irony and they know the difference between the kind of inconsistency that sparks critique while getting a laugh and the kind that makes no sense. Even more important, they get that the best challenge to weaponized hypocrisy may well be to mock it. Since if there is one thing Trumpist hypocrites are worse at than recognizing their own hypocrisy,it is taking a joke. And that's pretty funny.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Read more

about politics, irony and satire:

Originally posted here:
How Trump redefined shameless hypocrisy and made it politically indispensable - Salon

When candidate Donald Trump was running for president against Hilary Clinton, he stated clearly and emphatically the importance of handling classified government documents securely so that they would not get into the hands of the wrong people. This was part of his campaign message: Clinton had been careless with classified information by using a private email server while serving as secretary of state.

This was not just extreme carelessness with classified materials, he said on the campaign trail, this is calculated, deliberate, premeditated, misconduct that disqualifies Clinton from running for president.

You go to jail for that, said Trump, after which the crowds would chant, Lock her up.

In my administration, Trump said, Im going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information.

Trump seems always ready to enforce the laws against others while thinking the same laws dont apply to him.

It has been over a year since Trump removed boxes of classified documents from the White House to his home in Florida and months since the National Archives and Records Administration have sought their return. They were able to secure 15 boxes of these materials in February and received assurances from Trumps attorney that he had no other classified materials in his home. That turned out to be false and the Justice Department has been negotiating with Trump for the rest of the documents ever since. Trump even received a grand jury subpoena demanding that the other documents be returned. He refused and forced the Justice Department to ask the FBI to secure them.

So what was Trump planning to do with all of these classified documents?

Of course, anyone else would have been arrested months ago. But, once again, Trump has received special treatment not equal treatment under the law. Trump was given months to return the documents, without penalty, and he did not. To claim persecution now after a judge approved a search warrant for the documents is a joke. But his enablers are there for the rescue. I imagine that if this were Hillary Clinton and not their man, the Republican narrative about the raid on Mar-a-Lago would be very different.

After getting elected president in 2018, Trump signed a bill that upgraded the crime of moving classified government documents from a misdemeanor to a felony. Again, this was in response to Clintons private email server. With the upgrade, a person found guilty of mishandling classified documents could face up to five years in prison.

Multiple White House staff working for Trump, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, have spoke of finding wads of paper clogging White House toilets. If true, this is also illegal. Presidential documents belong to the government, not the president.

The president does not get to decide what to keep or flush.

Trump says that former presidents have done the same by moving documents into their presidential libraries. In fact, documents moved to presidential libraries are managed by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the former presidents or their staffs. In the wake of the raid, NARA released a clarifying statement saying all previous presidents have followed the law on this matter.

Efforts by Fox News and other right-wing entities to protect Trump after being caught breaking the law are extraordinary. They are Trumps enablers who believe he is above the law. As stated by Paul Waldman in The Washington Post, Trump has to sell a fantasy of collective persecution in order to protect himself and keep his supporters. Trumps enablers know their audience, and theyre very good at identifying what that audience needs to hear, then repeating it over and over.

All of this misinformation spread by the right-wing media has led to threats and violence against the FBI and Justice Department officials by Trump supporters. It appears that Trump and his supporters are only pro-police when the police are shooting unarmed Black men. How dare they go after their guy as he flaunts the law.

For Trump, it appears that what he said about classified documents, being pro-police, and all that stuff about law and order apply to other people, not him.

Another example of this is when Trump said that taking the Fifth Amendment was like an admission of wrongdoing.

If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Trump said at a rally in Iowa in 2016.

Its a terrible thing for a president to take the Fifth Amendment, Trump said referring to President Bill Clinton in 1998.

The mob takes the Fifth, Trump said in 2018.

Yet, just last week, Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 440 times, according to NBC News, during a deposition by lawyers from the New York Attorney Generals Office looking into the Trump Organizations taxes and other questionable business dealings.

Trump is like the child who never has to face consequences for inappropriate behavior. It is always someone elses fault while he plays the victim. His special treatment has emboldened him to act out however he wants and then dare someone to do something about it.

What Trump said about Clinton applies to himself: This was not just extreme carelessness with classified materials. This is calculated, deliberate, premeditated, misconduct. You go to jail for that.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniel.edu.

Continue reading here:
Tom Zirpoli: The law applies to everyone, except Trump | COMMENTARY - Baltimore Sun

Nikolas Cruz

The Parkland school mass shooter was damaged since before birth, an attorney told jurors on Monday. Nikolas Cruz, 24, was exposed to intoxicants in the womb because his biological mother Brenda Woodardused drugs and alcohol while pregnant with him, lawyer Melisa Alice McNeill of the Broward Public Defenders Office told Florida jurors in opening statements.

The lawyer said that Cruz was born by C-section. He had the cord wrapped around his neck three times, she added. He was blue for the first minute of his life, had to be resuscitated, and his extremities remained blue for five minutes, she said. When Cruz was three and a half years old, he was determined to be acting like a child that had just turned two, McNeill said.

The defendant was developmentally delayed and received inconsistent help in getting better, the attorney said. For example, adoptive mother Lynda Cruz did not follow up on Cruz visiting a psychologist when he was 3, McNeill said. He was on and off medication in elementary school, with Lynda citing the cost, the attorney said. Cruz did improve when he was in a structured, supportive environment, the lawyer said.

After troubling middle school years, Cruz did better after getting moved to Cross Creek School because it was a specialized environment. He was nonetheless later transferred to Marjory Stoneman Douglas, where he struggled behaviorally, academically and socially, McNeill said. Behavior included cutting himself and drinking gasoline.

When I met Nikolas Cruz on Feb. 15, 2018, I knew that he was a damaged person, McNeill said. But I also know that wounded and damaged people wound and damage other people because they are in pain.

The defense postponed their turn to speak until after the states case. Their job now is to convince jurors that Cruz who admittedly murdered 17 people and tried to kill 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14, 2018 should get life in prison without parole instead of the death penalty. He pleaded guilty last year. The state had refused to budge on seeking capital punishment, leading to this penalty phase.

Prosecutors went into explicit and extensive detail in laying out the aggravating factors against Cruz. He long planned committing a mass shooting, declaring in a Feb. 11, 2018 cell phone video that he was going to be the next school shooter of that year, prosecutors said.

Cruz attacked his former school with a semiautomatic rifle, stalking the hallways for victims, according to testimony and evidence. He even returned to shoot people he already hurt.

The gunshots were so powerful that you could feel the vibration, teacherRonit Reoventestified.

By all accounts, the wounds were horrific.

Survivors testified to the horrifying near-death experience.StudentSamantha Mayortestified a round shattered her kneecap. TeacherErnest Rospierski, who rushed children to safety, said bullets grazed him on the face and hip.

Law enforcement officers testified about finding slain victims and discussed their efforts helping the survivors.

Im miss him! Corey Hixon, the son of slain school athletic director Christopher Hixon, told the court in a victim impact statement.

Prosecutor Michael Satztold jurors in his opening statement last month that the aggravators outweigh whatever mitigators they might hear, such as details regarding Cruzs childhood and whatever treatment he received.

In addition to Christopher Hixon, the slain victims in the mass shooting were 14-year-old student Alyssa Alhadeff, 35-year-old teacherScott Beigel, 14-year-old studentMartin Duque Anguiano, 17-year-old studentNicholas Dworet, 37-year-old assistant football coachAaron Feis, 14-year-old studentJaime Guttenberg, 15-year-old student Luke Hoyer, 14-year-old studentCara Loughran, 14-year-old studentGina Montalto, 17-year-old studentJoaquin Oliver, 14-year-old studentAlaina Petty, 18-year-old studentMeadow Pollack, 17-year-old studentHelena Ramsay, 14-year-old studentAlexander Schachter, 16-year-old studentCarmen Schentrup, and 15-year-old studentPeter Wang.

There was no defense for Cruzs actions, McNeill said. She emphasized the obsessions he lived with through his life, including video games, guns, bowel movements, vegan diets and even demons.

McNeill told jurors that the defense was not hiding that, but said his brain is broken. Hes a damaged human being.

Family members including Cruzs sister Danielle Woodardare expected to testify. Her attorney in an unrelated, ongoing case appeared before the Parkland shooting court on Monday, saying he had only just learned on Friday about Woodard being set to testify. He said his client would assert her Fifth Amendment rights on matters he did not specify. He said there were concerns about her competency in her personal case, but JudgeElizabeth A. Scherer, who appeared annoyed with the last-minute announcement, said the legal standards of competence were lower for witnesses than for defendants.

[Screenshot via Law&Crime Network]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

The rest is here:
His Brain Is Broken: Parkland School Shooters Biological Mother Used Drugs and Alcohol While Pregnant, Lawyer Tells Jury - Law & Crime