Mediaboss Marketing

Washington County prep football stars are ready for 2022 season

Highlights from players across Washington County who will be back on the gridiron this fall.

Herald-Mail Sports, Wochit

Saying there is no way to protect the community by releasing her from jail, a judge Friday afternoon declined to set bond for a mother charged with causing the abuse that resulted last week in the death of her 5-year-old son.

The ruling by Washington County District Judge Terry A. Myers means Catherine Thrasher, 30, will remain behind bars along with her boyfriend, Timothy Lee Haselden II, 33, who is also charged in the death of Thrasher's son.

Haselden was watching the boy and two of the child's siblings July 22 at Thrasher's house north of Interstate 70 and west of Greencastle Pike, according to charging documents filed in the case. The 5-year-old became unresponsive and Haselden told police he noticed a brown substance coming from the boy's nose.

He called Thrasher at work, who got a ride home. When she arrived, she called 911 regarding the boy's condition. Arriving medics found the boy in cardiac arrest and told Washington County Sheriff's Office deputies that his injuries were consistent with abuse. The boy also had a swollen head, apparently from a potential skull fracture, and there were signs of strangulation, according to court records in the case.

Previously:Washington County man charged with first-degree child abuse and death of 5-year-old boy

The boy was taken to Meritus Medical Center near Hagerstown and then to Children's National Hospital in Washington, D.C., where he died.

Haselden, who is facing charges including first-degree child abuse causing the death of a child under 13-years-old, continued to be held without bond following a hearing Monday in district court.

Thrasher continued to be held without bond this week at the Washington County Detention Center after her bond hearing was postponed until Friday. She was taken into custody at the Washington County Sheriff's Office on Monday following an interview with authorities.

She is also charged with first-degree abuse causing the death of a child younger than 13 years old, which carries a potential life sentence.

Thrasher also is charged with a first-degree count of causing abuse that resulted in severe physical injury to a child in her custody; a second-degree count of causing abuse of a child in her custody; causing sexual abuse to a child in her custody; first- and second-degree assault; and neglect of a minor, charging documents state.

Assistant State's Attorney Michelle Flores argued before Myers on Friday afternoon in Thrasher's bond hearing that Thrasher should not be released on bond.

As Thrasher looked on through a closed-circuit TV link from the Washington County Detention Center, Flores said Thrasher's charges stem beyond the fact that she is the mother of the boy. Flores said evidence shows that Thrasher was a participant in acts resulting in his injuries, which included new and old bruises over his body.

"These are not bruises from one incident," Flores said.

Flores also argued that Thrasher is a flight risk, adding that she has only lived in the area for a couple years.

"She has no ties here, no career holding her here," Flores said.

During a hearing for Thrasher on Tuesday, Acting District Public Defender Eric Reed asked for a postponement due to a potential conflict of interest. Reed and the public defender's office represented Haselden, who has past criminal cases, at his Monday bond hearing. Reed said he planned to seek a different attorney for Thrasher.

Hagerstown Attorney Robert L. Kline III told Myers during Friday's hearing that he will be representing Thrasher.

Kline requested that Thrasher be given an unsecured bond and that she perhaps be fitted with a home monitoring device.

Kline detailed Thrasher's state of mind the day her son died. When Haselden called her to report what happened to the boy, Thrasher "promptly obtained a ride home. She was the one who called 911," Kline said. "She cooperated with police later that day," he said.

That's in contrast to Haselden, who declined to provide information to authorities under this Fifth Amendment rights, Kline said.

After ordering Thrasher to be continued to be held without bond, Myers said there is no way the community can be safe with her out of jail. He said the fact that the case is a serious one is an "understatement."

Preliminary hearings for Thrasher and Haselden have been scheduled for Aug. 23 at 8:30 a.m. in district court.

A deputy who responded to Thrasher's house on July 22 said he found the boy's two siblings sleeping. He said the children were not well kept and the youngest child appeared to have lesions and/or abrasions on his face, court documents state.

At least one of the siblings had been taken to Children's National Hospital.

The sibling was released from the hospital and both siblings were in foster care through Child Protective Services, the sheriff's office said earlier this week.

Haselden is also charged with first- and second-degree rape; first- and second-degree assault; sex abuse of a minor; neglect of a minor; abuse of a child in his custody that resulted in severe physical injury; and second-degree abuse of a child in his custody.

Read the original post:
Washington County woman held in death of 5-year-old son - Herald-Mail Media

EDITORS NOTE: This article includes reporting by Tom Strode of Baptist Press.

JEFFERSON CITY Longtime Missouri Southern Baptist statesman and pro-life advocate Larry Lewis is calling Southern Baptists to lead out in support of a pro-life amendment to the United States Constitution.

Lewis was among many Southern Baptist pro-life advocates who rejoiced, June 24, when the high court overruled its 1973 Roe v. Wade opinion as well as the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling that affirmed Roe and returned abortion policy to the states.

JEFFERSON CITY Longtime Missouri Southern Baptist statesman and denominational leader Larry Lewis and his wife, Creeda, greet Missouri Baptist Directors of Missions and other guests, March 29, during the dedication of the Larry Lewis Strategy Room at the Missouri Baptist Conventions building here. (Pathway photo by Benjamin Hawkins).

The Supreme Courts opinion in Dobbs v. Mississippi Womens Health Organization brought an end to an abortion rule established by Roe that cost the lives of more than an estimated 63 million preborn children.

The Supreme Courts reversal of Roe was a decision for which Lewis had long prayed. He was pastor of Tower Grove Baptist Church in St. Louis when he wrote and defended from the platform as a member of the 1980 Resolutions Committee the first pro-life resolution approved by messengers to the SBCs annual meeting. After his election as president of the Home Mission Board (now North American Mission Board) in 1987, the board inaugurated the same year under his leadership the Alternatives to Abortion Ministries to help churches and associations establish crisis pregnancy centers.

He is delighted the Roe v. Wade ruling has been overturned, Lewis said. Roe v. Wade is probably the worst decision ever rendered by the [U.S.] Supreme Court, with the possible exception of Dred Scott, the high courts 1857 opinion that said free and enslaved Black Americans were not U.S. citizens, he said.

Never in the history of our republic has any court ever found in the Constitution a right for a mother to kill her children, either born or unborn, he wrote in a statement for Baptist Press.

Of course, reversing Roe v. Wade doesnt assure the right to life for the unborn but simply transfers the issue to the states to fashion whatever laws they think appropriate, Lewis said. Fortunately, there are several states that will likely prohibit or strictly regulate abortion except for extreme circumstances, such as where the life of the mother is seriously threatened. Unfortunately, many others will freely allow abortions with few or any restrictions.

[W]e have a fight for life on our hands! We must fight hard to assure our state legislatures fashion strong right-to-life legislation. We must fight equally as hard against those who will undoubtedly seek to amend the Constitution to assure the right to abort is constitutional. Instead, we should seek to amend the Constitution to assure the right to life, already clearly embedded in the Constitution, applies to the unborn as well as to anyone else.

This month, Lewis delivered to The Pathway a statement calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. His statement is based on an appeal he previously made in 1981, while serving as a board member for Southern Baptists for Life. Read the statement below:

When our founding fathers drafted the United States Constitution, they wisely included a provision whereby it could be amended. The persuasive arguments of James Madison convinced the others that providing a means to amend the constitution was not only desirable but imperative. Madison observed, in framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce.

Since that time the constitution has been amended many times for many reasons. To be exact, there have been 27 amendments in the nearly 250 year history of our republic, an average of at least one per decade! I believe most have been for the good of the country.

If it were not for amendments to the constitution our cherished right to worship would not be secure. It is the first amendment (not the constitution itself) that gives us the right to worship, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceable assembly.

If it were not for amendments, women would not have a right to vote and black men and women would still be slaves. In fact, most of the cherished rights we enjoy in America today are provided through amendments to the constitution, rather than by the constitution itself. Perhaps most important of these are the first ten, commonly called The Bill of Rights.

But why is there a need for yet another amendment to secure the right to life for the unborn? Doesnt the constitution speak eloquently of certain unalienable rights, among these the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Unfortunately, this beautiful rhetoric found in the Declaration of Independence never made it into the constitution. The constitution itself says nothing about a right to life for either the born or unborn. Thank God for the fifth and fourteenth amendments or there would be no right to life assured by the United States Constitution!

The fifth amendment states that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Life, liberty, and property can be taken, but only by due process of law. Also, this provision applies only to persons.

In the infamous Dred Scott decision the obvious rights of black men and women were abridged in order to sustain slavery. The Supreme Court ruled that since black men and women were slaves, they should be classified as property rather than as persons. Therefore, the right to own slaves, abuse slaves, and even kill slaves was sustained on the grounds that they were not really persons and therefore could not enjoy any rights provided by the constitution and the fifth amendment. Does this not remind one of the muddled reasoning the Supreme Court used in Roe v. Wade in 1973 concluding that the unborn were not protected by the constitution because they were not persons?

The twisted thinking of the Dred Scott case was rectified several years later with the passage of the fourteenth amendment. This amendment specifically states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside and prohibits any state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

For years it was assumed that the right to life thus secured by the fifth and fourteenth amendments applied not only to citizens of the United States but to their unborn offspring. History is replete with countless instances where large monetary awards were given parents of unborn offspring who were damaged as a result of accident or violence. Abortion was prohibited by law in every state of the Union except in cases where the life of the mother was in danger or (in a few states) in cases of incest and/or rape. The idea that a mother would want to destroy her unborn baby was abhorrent.

This all changed in January, 1973. In the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court concluded (1) a womans right to privacy included her right to decide to terminate her pregnancy and (2) states interest in unborn life is not sufficiently compelling to permit regulation of abortion (at least prior to viability). The court considered the argument that even if the unborn are not persons, they are at least human beings and that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of human beings. However, the court concluded that the unborn baby possessed only potential life and the interest of the state in protecting potential life is not compelling.

Thus the Supreme Court, the highest deliberative body in the land, concluded there was no right to life secured by the United States Constitution for the unborn. They question whether or not the unborn child is really a human being and they definitely conclude the unborn is not a person. Therefore, since he is not a person the fifth and fourteenth amendments provisions cannot apply since they are explicitly attributed to persons. They further conclude that since the rights secured by the constitution apply only to citizens of the United States and a citizen is defined as one who is born or naturalized in the United States they cannot apply to the unborn since they have neither been born or naturalized.

To say the unborn baby is not a person is the exact antithesis of the testimony of Jeremiah, before thou comest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations (Jer. 1:5). Likewise the Psalmist declared (referring to himself in the first person), I will praise thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them (Ps. 139:14-16).

To imply, as did the Supreme Court in 1973, that the unborn is not a human being is absurd! If the unborn child is not a human being, what kind of being is it? From the moment the child is conceived it has every attribute of a human being. From that point it merely grows and develops.

Opposition to Roe v. Wade was immediate, even among the Justices themselves. In his dissent Justice White observed: I find nothing in the language or history of the constitution to support the courts judgement. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers. Likewise, Justice Rehnquist stated in his dissent: To reach its result the court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the fourteenth amendment a right that was completely unknown to the drafters of the amendment.

Since that infamous decision in 1973, over 65 million unborn babies have been killed by abortion in the United States alone. Every 20 seconds we delay in correcting this terrible decision, another unborn baby is destroyed and discarded as so much trash!

If in 1964 it was important to amend the constitution so that the poll tax could be eliminated, is it not at least equally important to amend the constitution now so the senseless slaughter of unborn babies can be restrained?

In 1971 we amended the constitution so 18-year-olds might have the right to vote. Is it not just as important now to amend the constitution so that unborn babies may have the right to live?

In 1951, we amended the constitution so the President of the United States would be prohibited from serving more than two terms. Is it not just as important to amend the constitution now so a mother may be prohibited from destroying her unborn child?

Baptists should be at the forefront leading the effort to secure a human life amendment. Just as we have been quick and forceful in leading the effort to oppose gambling, the lottery, pornography, alcohol and drugs, we should be leading the effort to oppose the abortion holocaust in America today.

Southern Baptists are firmly on record in support of a human life amendment. Most resolutions on the issue passed by the Southern Baptist Convention since 1980 have included a strong statement supporting an amendment.

Likewise, most of our outstanding Southern Baptist leaders are outspoken in their support of this cause. Former SBC President, Dr. Adrian Rogers, identified abortion as the most important issue in our contemporary list of social concerns, and was a longtime supporter of those who sought to get a human life amendment approved by Congress. To my knowledge, all of our former Southern Baptist presidents since 1979 have been opponents of abortion and supporters of a human life amendment.

A human life amendment is imperative even though the muddled reasoning of Roe v. Wade has been corrected. Even though there has been a change in the consistency of the Supreme Court and more conservative, pro-life Justices have been appointed and even though the new court reversed Roe v. Wade, the potential for disaster still remains. An amendment is needed to make it explicitly clear that the right to life provided through the fifth and fourteenth amendments applies not only to the mother but to the unborn offspring as well.

I personally favor an amendment designed to return to the states the authority to make laws governing abortion. I do not believe it is the role of the constitution to become a criminal code, but rather to protect and secure those laws of the people, by the people, and for the people, enacted by the Congress and the state legislatures. Also, from the standpoint of political expediency, I believe this type of amendment has greater possibility of passage in Congress and ratification by the states.

For many years now in our state conventions and in our Southern Baptist Convention we have debated the abortion issue and we have passed strong resolutions opposing abortion and affirming the sanctity of human life. From our pulpits we have condemned the abortion clinics and opposed abortion vociferously. But the carnage continues!

Resolutions and eloquent preachments alone will not stop the abortion holocaust. Although not the total solution, a human life amendment is imperative if this avalanche of human carnage is to be stemmed.

See more here:
'Assure the right to life': Lewis urges Southern Baptists to support pro-life amendment in US Constitution - The Pathway

On Monday, the Fifth Circuit decided an interesting Miranda case, allowing admission of a suspect's unwarned statements. And Judge Jones provided an even more interesting concurring opinion, suggesting that voluntary statements should be admitted in situations where it was debatable whether the Miranda rules were applicable. Judge Jones makes a compelling cost-benefit argument against suppressing statements in such circumstances, and I hope that her approach in followed in future cases.

Here are the facts, as recounted in the decision: A lone police officer performed a traffic stop on Braylon Coulter in the middle of the night. Having been given reason to suspect that Coulter, who revealed an aggravated robbery conviction, had a gun, the officer handcuffed him and asked where it was. Coulter answered, and the officer's partner arrived later to find a .40 caliber pistol and .37 ounces of marijuana in Coulter's backpack between the front seats of the van he drove. Before Coulter divulged that information, the officer did not provide Miranda warnings. The admissibility of Coulter's unwarned statements therefore depended on whether he was "in custody" as contemplated by Miranda at the time he offered them.

The Fifth Circuit held that a reasonable person in Coulter's position would not havethought that he was in custody for Miranda purposes. Moreover, the officer questioned Coulter in an environment that was not tantamount to a station house interrogation as contemplated by Miranda. As a result, the Fifth Circuit (in a 2-1 decision authored by Judge Jones) held that all of Coulter's unwarned statements were admissible.

Judge Jones went on, however, to file a concurring opinion to her own majority opinion. She argued that, where the issue of Miranda compliance was debatable, it would be appropriate to weigh the costs and benefits of suppressing a voluntary statement:

The panel is deeply divided on the application of the "custody" test. Under such circumstances, it seems to me, we ought to recall that "[t]he Miranda rules are prophylactic rules that the Court found to be necessary to protect the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination." Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. __, __, 2022 WL 2251304, *8 (June 23, 2022). Moreover, "when [the Supreme] Court creates a prophylactic rule to protect a constitutional right, the relevant 'reasoning' is the weighing of the rule's benefits against its costs." Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 793 (2009). The Miranda rule is therefore "justified only by reference to its prophylactic purpose, . . . and applies only where its benefits outweigh its costs[.]" Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 106 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) . When three judges cannot agree on whether a suspect in a traffic stop is "in custody," then we ought to consider the costs and benefits of suppressing incriminatory statements.

Judge Jones then went on to conclude that, in cases such as this one, the cost-benefit calculation tips decidedly against suppressing a voluntary statement. She explained that "the costs of suppressing Coulter's unwarned statements would be substantial, namely, hindering the prosecution of a convicted felon who voluntarily admitted to possessing a firearm and drugs." She also noted that "the videotape of this entire encounter compellingly shows there was no improper compulsion or restraint."

What about adopting a flat rule that police must always give Miranda warnings when they handcuff someone? Judge Jones explained that "[o]fficers might be put to the choice of ensuring their own safety or conducting routine investigations. One potential price of premature Mirandizing would be to require broader vehicle searches, and thus broader invasions of privacy, because officers would likely lack voluntary admissions from suspects. Prematurely requiring Miranda warnings during traffic stops would also inhibit questioning that could assist in time-sensitive investigations, e.g., for kidnapping victims or terrorists."

Judge Jones concluded that "suppressing Coulter's unwarned statements under these circumstances would also yield no meaningful societal or judicial benefits. '[U]nlike unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment or actual violations of the Due Process Clause or the Self-Incrimination Clause, there is, with respect to mere failures to warn, nothing to deter.' United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, 642 (2004) (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). Here, under applicable law, there was nothing to deterand therefore no justification for suppressing Coulter's un-Mirandized statements."

I think Judge Jones' concurrence is very persuasive. As I have discussed at length in my various articles on Miranda (the most recent of which can be found here), that decision imposes significant costs of law enforcement. In cases such as this one, where a suspect's statements are not, in fact, compelled and the only issue is one of Miranda compliance in a debatable situation, it is hard to see the justification for suppressing a suspect's statements. I hope that Judge Jones' concurring opinion attracts wide attention and is followed in future cases.

See the article here:
Should There Be a Cost-Benefit Exception to Miranda's Exclusionary Rule? - Reason

Two Chicago men who have each spent 23 years in prison had their murder convictions tossed out based on the police work of a detective accused of framing more than 70 people for homicides they did not commit.

Eruby Abrego, 43, and codefendant Jeremiah Cain, 47, became the 27th and 28th people exonerated and the seventh and eighth cleared within the last 12 days based on allegations that retired detective Reynaldo Guevara routinely beat suspects and witnesses, coerced confessions, and used threats in order to close murder investigations.

I want to scream to the world, Abregos sister, Debbie Daniels, told BuzzFeed News about her brothers release. They slandered our family name.

A 2017 BuzzFeed News investigation documented widespread reports of corruption by Guevara.

Abrego and Cain were convicted of the 1999 murder of 46-year-old Jose Garcia and wounding 20-year-old Julio Lugo. Garcia had been sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car with his nephew, Ramon Torres, in the drivers seat. Lugo, along with his 10-year-old cousin, was chatting with Garcia and Torres when a young Latino with a hood pulled low over his face called out a rival gang taunt, then opened fire from across the street. Lugo had bullet wounds in his shoulder and buttocks but survived. Garcia suffered a shot to his head.

Witnesses at the scene described the shooter as 57 with dark skin. Abrego measured 54 with light skin.

One man, who had already been acquitted of Garcias murder, testified at a recent hearing that he had been the one to fire the gun. Torres, the witness in the drivers seat, cried inconsolably during a hearing earlier this year, testifying that Guevara told him whom to select out of a lineup.

Guevara has invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when asked about allegations of misconduct.

Yet Guevara isnt the only police officer accused of misconduct in this case.

Abrego said that one of Guevaras colleagues, Detective Anthony Wojcik, punched Abrego 20 to 25 times, like I was a punching bag, while he was chained to the wall. Abrego said detectives denied him food for more than 24 hours. When Wojcik later appeared in the interrogation room, Abrego complained of feeling queasy and needing to vomit. According to court documents, Abrego vomited blood, and when he asked Wojcik to take him to the hospital, the detective said, Just tell me what I want to hear and Ill take you wherever you want to go.

A scared, hungry Abrego then falsely confessed to killing Garcia.

Cains statements to Wojcik change over the course of his interviews. He alleged Wojcik beat him into making false statements until they fit the polices narrative of the crime: That Abrego was the shooter. Police claimed they found a handgun linked to the Garcia murder, but Cain said he had no knowledge it had been used in a crime.

Lawyers for Abrego and Cain called witnesses to testify that Wojcik, like Guevara, has a pattern of brutalizing suspects. In 2014, when Chicago police fired 16 bullets into the body of a 17-year-old Black boy named Laquan McDonald, Wojcik approved police reports that contained lies in an attempt to cover up McDonalds murder. A Department of Justice investigation into the Chicago police cited the reports Wojcik approved in the McDonald case as evidence of highly troubling procedures within the department.

Wojcik denied wrongdoing in the case. BuzzFeed News left messages with his attorney but did not receive an immediate response.

Wojciks name is not a name that a lot of people have heard yet but its a name that people will hear because he has done systematic efforts to coerce and torture people into confessing to crimes against their constitutional rights, said David B. Owens, one of Abregos attorneys.

This is an all-star cast of detectives with troubled backgrounds.

The states attorneys office dropped charges months into hearings in which a parade of witnesses testified to being abused by Wojcik and Guevara. Tossing the convictions rather than allowing a judge to issue a decision in the case eliminates the possibility that the court would issue an unfavorable ruling involving Wojcik. That unfavorable ruling could then open legal pathways and buttress claims of more than a dozen men who have already filed in court claiming they were beaten into false confessions.

Karl Leonard, another Abrego attorney, doesn't buy that hypothesis.

"If the state wanted to avoid making a record made in this case in other Wojcik cases they could have made this decision years ago before the other victims took the stand," he said. "I dont think its convenient timing."

In a statement, the states attorneys office said that in the matters of Abrego and Cain, "our review concluded that these convictions were not in the interest of justice, and today we withdrew our opposition to the post-conviction petition and dismissed the case."

Cains brother, Alexander, who has only been able to give his brother a thumbs up from across the courtroom for the last few decades, said, I want to give the guy a hug.

Abrego returns home to his mother, Oralia Cerna, 78, whom doctors last month declared free of breast cancer. He will also be greeted by Juan and Rosendo Hernandez, two brothers exonerated last week, who went shopping to buy Abrego clothes for his release.

But Abregos sister said her work isnt over with her brothers release.

Wojcik, she said, Im coming for you.

Read this article:
Two More Men Convicted Of Murder Have Been Exonerated After 23 Years In Prison Due To Allegations Of Police Misconduct - BuzzFeed News

After the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, is there any doubt that Donald Trump fomented the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021?

There are no longer any innocent explanations for what he did that day. Select Committee testimony has demonstrated that he knew he had no good factual or legal basis for his claim that the election was stolen, that he knew Vice President Mike Pence was not going to save him and that his only chance to remain in the White House was to stop the final ratification by Congress on Jan. 6. The testimony has also demonstrated that he knew some in the crowd assembled to hear him speak were armed, that a mob was heading to the Capitol, and that it was clearly in his power to call off the insurrection but instead of trying to stop the violence, he chose to do nothing.

The question is: Can anything be done, short of a criminal conviction, to prevent Trump from seeking to recapture the presidency?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies a person from being president who, while holding a federal office, participated in an insurrection against the United States.

That prohibition must surely apply to Donald Trump, and that is what the House sought to establish in Trumps second impeachment; however, because the impeachment trial was held before a full investigation of the insurrection charge had taken place, much of the most damning evidence uncovered by the Select Committee was not available. Thus, while the House will not get a second chance, there are other means of achieving Trumps disqualification, although they have never been tested in a court before now.

Whether President Biden runs in 2024, it is certain that there will be a Democrat on the ballot, and thus the Democratic Party, on behalf of all of its candidates, could bring suit in federal court right now, seeking a ruling that Donald Trump participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection and an order precluding him from even being a candidate for president.

Trump would first have to decide whether to fight the lawsuit, which would mean saying whether he was running in 2024, something he would prefer to announce at a time and place of his choosing, not when and where he is sued.

After making some procedural motions in an effort to have the case dismissed, the former president would then have to respond to discovery, including being subjected to a deposition in which he would have to answer questions under oath. Unlike the situation with the Select Committee, he would have no arguable claims of presidential privilege, so that if he refused to answer questions, the court could draw adverse inferences against him from his refusals, meaning he could no longer argue that his conduct was justified if he would not provide a factual basis for his repeated assertions that the election was stolen.Moreover, ifthe suit were filed now, there would be plenty of time for discovery, a trial, and an appeal before the primaries start in early 2024.

Like every other American, Trump would have the option of claiming the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. That path would be rather awkward for any candidate for public office, but especially for him in light of what he said during the 2016 campaign about employing that tactic:The mob takes the Fifth If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

Unlike most laws, section 3 provides a special means to avoid disqualification, which the Democrats might like as much as the trial: Two thirds of each House can vote to grant him amnesty that would require Republican Senators and Representatives to go on the record on whether Trump should be entitled to be a candidate for president, despite having been found to have been part of the insurrection.

Will this lawsuit succeed? No one can know for sure, but it seems as if there is nothing to lose, or at least not if the Department of Justice does not indict Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Alan B. Morrison is an associate dean at George Washington University Law School where he teaches constitutional law.

More here:
Democrats should use 14th Amendment insurrection clause to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024 - The Hill