Mediaboss Marketing

Recent Supreme Court decisions and what they mean

The recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision that many have been dreading has put many Americans on high alert as their lives have been changed significantly. Many have expressed their dismay about living through major plot points in American history. While a plethora of people are focused on one decision SCOTUS has made, they may be neglecting the others.

One of the many rulings the Supreme Court has made affected Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. The ruling was made on June 29, 2022, which states the Federal Government and the State have the concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Native Americans against Native Americans in Indian country. This basically means that if a non-Native American individual were to commit a crime against a Native American in their territory, the state would have the power to prosecute. This goes against the previous ruling Worcester v. Georgia, where they barred the state of Georgia from exercising jurisdiction within the Cherokee Nation lands. This new ruling essentially strips Native American lands of their judicial power. Many individuals, like Tik Toker, @paraoxicalfemme, are worried that the Indian Child Welfare Act will now be in the hands of SCOTUS as well.

Another recent SCOTUS decision includes Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which took place on Jun. 27. It notes that the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from governmental reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. The case was based on a football coach who lost his job after openly expressing his religious beliefs after football games. As students began to join the coach in prayer, the district declared that he was not allowed to pray with the students, which led him to begin praying silently on his own time. However, since he was in view of students and faculty he was let go, as it infringes on the separation of church and state. The Court has now ruled that the school district violated his religious rights and that public school officials have a constitutional right to pray publicly and lead students in prayer during school events.

Piggy-backing from this trails Carson v. Makin on Jun 21. This requires Maine to give public money or taxes to private religious schools. Virtually declaring the separation of church and statea principle directly stated within the constitutionunconstitutional. Negating Everson v. Board of Education, where the court declared no tax in any amount can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.

Pays tuition for certain students at private schoolsso long as the schools are not religious is discrimination against religion, Chief Justice John Roberts claims in regards to Maines private religious education.

The most discussed ruling is the Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, decided on Jun 24. This case brought up the topic of abortion and overturned the previous Court ruling, Roe v. Wade. Mississippi Gestational Act states that unless there is a medical emergency or in the case of severe fetal abnormality, a person should not intentionally/knowingly induce or perform an abortion greater than 15 weeks gestation. A doctor at Jackson Womens Health Organization, an abortion clinic, challenged this stating it was a constitutional right to receive an abortion, i.e. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. SCOTUS ruled against this.

The constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion that did away with Roe.

An additional opinion involves ones Miranda rights, Vega v. Tekoh on Jun. 23. Deputy Vega questioned Tekoh at a medical center where Tekoh worked regarding the reported sexual assault of a patient. Vega did not inform Tekoh of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. After Tekoh was found not guilty he sued Vega for violating his constitutional rights. Many people are unaware of these rights therefore, officers are required to make these rights known upon arrest. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that rather than a constitutional right, they are a set of rules designed to protect the Fifth Amendment. In other words, it does not violate the constitution to not be read ones Miranda rights.

Furthermore there are various firearm related rulings as well. In the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the State of New York makes it illegal to possess a firearm without a license, in or outside the home. Those who wish to carry outside of their homes must have an unrestricted license to carry a pistol or revolver; if they can prove a proper cause. Two adults in New York were denied an unrestricted license for lack of a proper cause and they sued the state officials. SCOTUS has sided with the two law-abiding citizens and state that the New York proper-cause agreement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

A decision that not many people are aware of encloses Egbert v. Boule, which was ruled on Jun. 8, 2022. In 1952, the Immigration and Nationality Act gave border security certain additional authorities. Within a reasonable distance or 100 miles from the U.S. border a huge segment of the country predominantly occupied by radicalized and marginalized communities federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to conduct searches at the border to prevent illegal entry into the U.S. However, the law explicitly prohibits Border Patrol agents from entering homes without permission, a warrant or probable cause. In this case, Robert Boule alleged that border agent, Erik Egbert, violated his Fourth Amendment rights by coming onto his property without permission and then attacking him when he protested. Previously those who had been faced with damages would be able to receive compensation for the damages. However, the courts ruled this will no longer be the case, no longer holding officers accountable for the damages done to a home within a 100 miles from the border.

An additional case that many are oblivious to is the Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez ruling from late May. David Martinez Ramirez and Barry Lee were convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death. Nonetheless, they found that their trial counsel had been ineffective for failure to conduct adequate investigations. The Supreme Court held that a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state post-conviction counsel. Thus even if ones legal support is ineffective, they have no right to challenge the decision of the court based on the shoddy legal support.

There are many SCOTUS cases that have yet to surface on major social media platforms. Nevertheless, as a citizen of the United States, it is our right to know what rights are being taken away and changed at the drop of a dime. A plethora of people are fearful as to what rights they may rule on next and how that will change their lives. Many of the Justices are making decisions that not everyone agrees upon, thus the best thing one can do is to stay educated and know your rights. For more information, visit supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21.

Excerpt from:
Blurred Lines the JTAC - JTAC News

In their relationships with President Donald J. Trump in recent years, Roger J. Stone Jr., his longtime political adviser, and Michael T. Flynn, who was briefly his national security adviser, have followed a similar trajectory.

Both were either convicted of or pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the investigation into the Trump campaigns connections to Russia. Both were pardoned by Mr. Trump after the 2020 presidential election. And both supported Mr. Trump in his relentless, multilayered efforts to reverse its outcome and remain in power.

The two were, in a sense, together again on Tuesday, when both were mentioned within an instant of one another at the House select committee hearing by Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trumps final chief of staff. Ms. Hutchinson told the panel that on Jan. 5, 2021, a day before the Capitol was stormed, Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Meadows to reach out to Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn.

Ms. Hutchinson acknowledged that she did not know what her boss may have said to the men, and Mr. Stone denied on Tuesday that any call with Mr. Meadows took place. But her testimony was the first time it was revealed that Mr. Trump, on the eve of the Capitol attack, had tried to open a channel of communication with a pair of allies who had not only worked on his behalf for weeks challenging the results of the election, but who also had extensive ties to extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, who were soon to be at the forefront of the violence.

The question of whether there was communication or coordination between the far-right groups that helped storm the Capitol and Mr. Trump and his aides and allies is among the most important facing the Jan. 6 investigators.

Barring a criminal prosecution or something else that could force the details of the calls into the public sphere it could be tough to be figure out exactly what if anything Mr. Meadows discussed with Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn.

Since late last year, Mr. Meadows has refused to comply with a committee subpoena that seeks his testimony about the weeks leading up to Jan. 6 a move that risked his indictment on contempt of Congress charges. As for Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn, both repeatedly exercised their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination during their own interviews with the committee.

Mr. Flynns interview was especially remarkable, according to a recording of it played at the hearing on Tuesday. A former three-star general who still collects a military pension, Mr. Flynn pleaded the Fifth Amendment even when he was asked if he believed the violence at the Capitol was wrong, and whether he supported the lawful transfer of presidential power.

Ms. Hutchinson also told the panel that she recalled hearing about the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers while the planning was taking place for Mr. Trumps public event near the White House on Jan. 6 a time, she explained, when the former presidents lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had been around.

It is possible that Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn will receive more attention when the panel reconvenes for its next public hearing in July. That is when Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, has said he intends to lead a presentation that will focus on the roles far-right groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and the 1st Amendment Praetorian played in the Capitol attack. Mr. Raskin has also promised to explore the connections between those groups and the people in Mr. Trumps orbit.

Both Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn fit that description, having maintained extensive ties to far-right groups in the postelection period. Much of the contact came at pro-Trump rallies in Washington when the men were guarded by members of the groups, who served as their bodyguards.

For over a year, Mr. Stone has repeatedly denied that he had any role in the violence that erupted at the Capitol.

Mr. Flynns lawyer has failed to respond to numerous requests for comments about the role his client played in the events of Jan. 6 and the weeks leading up to it.

As early as Dec. 12, 2020, the 1st Amendment Praetorian protected Mr. Flynn when he appeared as a speaker at a pro-Trump march in Washington. Joining the group as security at the event were members of the Oath Keepers, including the organizations leader, Stewart Rhodes, who has since been charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol attack.

The 1st Amendment Praetorian also helped Mr. Flynns onetime lawyer, Sidney Powell, gather open source intelligence about allegations of election fraud that was ultimately funneled into a series of conspiracy-laden lawsuits she filed challenging the voting results, according to the groups leader, Robert Patrick Lewis.

Mr. Lewis, by his own account, played a minor role in another, even more brazen, attempt to overturn the election. He has claimed that, on Dec. 18, 2020, he drove Mr. Flynn and Ms. Powell to the White House for an Oval Office meeting at which they sought to persuade Mr. Trump to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines around the country in his bid to stay in power.

On Jan. 6 itself, according to audio recordings obtained by The New York Times, a few members of the 1st Amendment Praetorian protected Mr. Flynn again. Around the same time, according to court papers filed in a recent defamation case, a member of the group, Philip Luelsdorff, was briefly present in the so-called war room at the Willard Hotel where pro-Trump lawyers, including Mr. Giuliani and John Eastman, had set up shop to plan the objections to the certification of the Electoral College vote count.

Ms. Hutchinson told the House committee that Mr. Stone and Mr. Flynn were also at the Willard on Jan. 6. She further testified that her boss, Mr. Meadows, wanted to make plans to visit the war room, a decision that she felt was inappropriate. She testified that Mr. Meadows ultimately decided not to go to the hotel and said that he would dial in instead.

Mr. Stone, a Florida resident, had ties to the Proud Boys well before Mr. Trump lost the election, especially to Enrique Tarrio, the groups former chairman, who lived in Miami before his arrest on sedition charges connected to the Capitol attack.

In 2019, after Mr. Stone was indicted by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on charges related to investigation into Russian efforts to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential race, Mr. Tarrio responded by wearing a T-shirt reading Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong at one of Mr. Trumps political rallies. At one point, Mr. Tarrios personal cellphone had a voice mail message recorded by Mr. Stone.

On Jan. 6, when he was staying at the Willard, Mr. Stone was in close contact with members of both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. A Proud Boy from Florida named Jacob Engels accompanied him to Washington and served as something like an aide-de-camp for him on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6.

At that same time, a small detail of Oath Keepers was also assigned to provide Mr. Stone with personal protection. At least four members of the detail are facing charges in connection with the Capitol attack.

Even if the House committee does not provide new insights about Mr. Stone at its next hearing, it is possible that the Justice Departments inquiry into the Capitol attack could unearth something fresh about his ties to the Oath Keepers in particular.

One of the men on Mr. Stones security detail was Joshua James, an Oath Keeper from Alabama. In March, Mr. James pleaded guilty to sedition charges.

As part of his deal with prosecutors, Mr. James has agreed to cooperate with the governments sprawling investigation of the Capitol attack.

Excerpt from:
Jan. 6 Panel Explores Links Between Trump Allies and Extremist Groups - The New York Times

Police took no chances when an armed intruder barricaded himself in the home of an innocent bystander in McKinney, Texas. Following a seven-hour standoff, officers launched a shock-and-awe raid that ended with the suspects suicide. Then they closed the case without paying for property damage.

The city told homeowner Vicki Baker that she was out of luck. So did her insurance company, which covers natural disasters but not deliberate police actions. The broken windows, smashed doors, punctured walls, tear gas-stained fabrics, and flattened backyard fence were her problem even though Baker had nothing to do with the crime and no connection to the intruder other than hiring him in the past as a handyman.

Normally the judicial system sanctions such shirking of responsibility. Federal courts have said for decades that forcing law enforcement agencies to pay for what they break in the course of their duties was legally impossible. But Baker tried anyway. She filed a constitutional lawsuit with representation from our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, and scored an underdog victory on June 22.

For the first time in U.S. history, a jury awarded a property owner damages under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes property for public use. Now, in at least one jurisdiction, the government will have to follow the same rule as schoolchildren: Clean up your own mess.

Author Robert Fulghum imagines the implications in his classic essay, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten: Think what a better world it would be if all governments had a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess. The courtesy seems obvious to Baker, who gave the police permission to enter her home but not to destroy it.

The ordeal started on July 25, 2020, when a former handyman showed up with a 15-year-old hostage and took control of the property as a hideout. Baker was not inside. She had moved to Montana and was in the process of selling the home. But her adult daughter, who was helping to get the property ready, found herself caught in the middle.

After getting permission to leave under the pretext of needing groceries, the daughter called Baker, and together, they called the police. The intruder later released his hostage unharmed, but Bakers house sustained nearly $60,000 in damages. After hearing the facts, the jury said she was entitled to the full amount.

The decision followed a favorable ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where Judge Amos Mazzant III picked apart the citys arguments for why it should not have to compensate Baker. Essentially, the judge ruled that when a city enforces its laws in the public interest, then the public should share the costs of intentional, foreseeable damage. The full burden should not fall on one unlucky bystander.

The courts were not so kind to Leo and Alfonsina Lech when an armed shoplifter randomly chose their Colorado home for a police standoff in 2015. A SWAT team left the property uninhabitable. But when the Lechs sued for damages, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invented a special Fifth Amendment exemption for the police, and the Supreme Court declined to consider the case.

Shaniz West also got nothing in Idaho after officers bombarded her empty house in 2014 during a search for her fugitive ex-boyfriend. And the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office initially told Robert Vansickle no in Florida when he sought compensation for property damage following a 2021 police standoff in his neighborhood.

Vansickle shamed the police in the media until local officials relented and paid for repairs. Baker needed a lawsuit and two years of legal wrangling to get the same result. Yet payment for intentional, foreseeable damage should be automatic.

The Fifth Amendment is clear: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Even a kindergartner can understand the logic.

JeffreyRedfernis an attorney, and Daryl James is a writer at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Virginia.

Visit link:
Texas police destroy home, then try to leave without paying - Washington Examiner

Summary

Confidence in the Supreme Court is at a new low with polling finding 57 percent of Americans believe the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was mostly based on politics, not law. You have to travel far from Washington to find a Republican politician who is willing to admit what the Supreme Court has done to the victims of rape and incest and what is going to happen now to 12-year-old-girls who are forced to give birth. Vladimir Putin, the man Donald Trump called a genius for invading Ukraine, ordered the bombing of a crowded shopping mall in central Ukraine this week, killing at least 20 people. Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony fully justified the subpoena to Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone that the committee issued today. Interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: History made in more ways than one at 12:00 noon tomorrow.

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST, "VELSHI": Yeah.

O`DONNELL: And another reminder, Ali, of why we vote for president. No matter what their issues are, no matter where your concerns are about specific legislative ambitions, most voters do have a preference for a Supreme Court justices being nominated by a Republican, or by a Democrat. And if you are prepared to live with Supreme Court justices from either party, then you are a very unusual voter.

So this is the product of all of those votes, all of those people who went out and voted for Joe Biden, that is how this has happened tomorrow.

VELSHI: A little piece of good news, I`m looking forward to your show tonight, Lawrence. Have a good one.

O`DONNELL: Thank you. Thank you, Ali. Thank you.

Well, tonight, we have a new reason -- I knew apparent reason -- why the January 6th committee rushed into that special session yesterday, to hear the public testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson. They want the White House counsel. They want him. And that`s why they had to have that hearing yesterday, because Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony fully justified the subpoena to Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone that the committee issued today.

The last time a president was destroyed by a congressional investigation, the White House counsel was a key witness. Richard Nixon`s White House counsel, John Dean, helped bring down the Nixon presidency, with his testimony in the Watergate hearings. And now it looks like Pat Cipollone could be the witness who locks in Donald Trump`s guilt for the January 6th committee.

When presidents break the law, the White House counsel knows. The White House counsel`s job is to prevent presidents from breaking the law, among other things. That is to say, prevent them from breaking the law intentionally or, as can happen, unintentionally.

When someone in the White House has a bright idea, like banning all Muslims from entering the country, it is the White House counsel`s job to say, we can`t do that, that`s unconstitutional. The White House counsel is not the president`s personal lawyer. The White House counsel does not represent the president as a lawyer. The White House counsel represents the Constitution.

The White House counsel is the defender of the Constitution, the principal defender of the Constitution, in the White House. The White House counsel is the Constitution cop in the White House.

The White House counsel also has other duties, like advising on judicial appointments. But there is nothing in the White House counsel`s work that is protected by the attorney-client privilege with the client being the president. Some of the communication between the president and the White House counsel could, arguably, the protected by executive privilege, as long as that president is still in office.

But that executive privilege does not outlive the presidents term in office. That does not mean that Pat Cipollone will not try to hide behind those privileges and response to the committee`s subpoena. He`s being ordered to testify exactly one week from now. And he has no legal right not to show up for that testimony.

In response to certain questions, he might try to claim attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. Those will be legally false claims. But the committee doesn`t really have the power to force him to answer those questions on the spot if he claims as false privileges.

The privilege that Pat Cipollone does have, and that he might need to invoke, is the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself in a possible crimes that he may have committed. And here is one passage in Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony yesterday that gives Pat Cipollone a fully valid claim of his Fifth Amendment right now to answer the question that I would ask him about this testimony.

[22:05:05]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE: On January 3rd, Mr. Cipollone had approached me knowing that Mark had raised the prospect of going up to the Capitol on January 6th. Mr. Cipollone and I had a brief private conversation where he said to me we need to make sure that this doesn`t happen. This would be a legally a terrible idea for us. We`re -- we have serious legal concerns if we go up to the Capitol that day.

And he then urged me to continue relaying that to Mr. Meadows, because it`s my understanding that Mr. Cipollone thought that Mr. Meadows was indeed pushing this, along with the president.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): And we understand, Ms. Hutchinson, that you also spoke to Mr. Cipollone on the morning of the 6th as you were about to go to the rally on the Ellipse, and Mr. Cipollone said something to you like make sure the movement to the Capitol does not happen. Is that correct?

HUTCHINSON: That`s correct. I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto West Exec that morning, and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of please make sure we don`t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: What do you mean we? We? We are going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen? We are going to get charged.

Mr. Cipollone, what do you mean, we are going to get charged? What were you going to get charged with if Donald Trump went to the Capitol on January 6th?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUTCHINSON: In the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about potentially leading up to obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count.

CHENEY: Let`s hear about some of those concerns that you mentioned earlier in one of your interviews with us.

HUTCHINSON: Having a private conversation with Pat late in the afternoon of the 3rd or 4th that Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice or obstructing the Electoral College count. And I apologize for probably not being so very clear with my legal terms here, but that it would look like we were obstructing what was happening on Capitol Hill.

And he was also worried that it would look like we were inciting a riot or encouraging a riot to erupt on the Capitol -- at the Capitol.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: The committee wants to talk to Mr. Cipollone about more than that, much more than that. And their letter today to Pat Cipollone, the committee told him that they have questions about, quote, the submission of fake electoral ballots to Congress and the executive branch, the attempted appointment of Jeffrey Clark as acting attorney general, and efforts to interfere with the congressional certification of the Electoral College results on January 6th, 2021.

The committee also revealed that Cipollone, quote, previously set for an informal interview with the select committee on August 13th, 2022.

Cipollone`s father came to this country as an immigrant from Italy who Donald Trump was would have prevented from entering the United States, had Trump been in power at the time.

Pat Cipollone`s father worked at a factory. His mother was a homemaker. He lived in the Bronx as a child before his family moved to Kentucky, where he attended a Catholic high school and then Catholic college. He was a leader of the right-wing Federalist Society at the university of Chicago law school when he served as one of three clerks to a federal judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

He helped to create the least intellectual atmosphere I`ve ever heard of in a federal appeals court judges chambers. "The New York Times" reported in 2019, a fellow clerk, Jennifer Hall, we called sitting in Judge Boggs`s bookshelf lined chambers between Mr. Cipollone and another clerk, Steven Vaughn, now trade lawyer in Washington. They would yell at each other over me, she recalled, listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Pat Cipollone and his wife were close friends with Fox`s Laura Ingraham, have ten children. He was making a few million dollars as a lawyer a year before joining the Trump White House and he is surely making at least that much now.

The good news is, Pat Cipollone is a lawyer, which means he knows that fighting the subpoena in court is hopeless.

[22:10:05]

But the bad news is, he is a ditto head. Rush Limbaugh fondly called his devoted audience ditto, meaning they just said ditto to everything, every crazy thing Rush Limbaugh said. Pat Cipollone is as hard-core conservative as anyone who worked in the Trump White House. He was part of the defense team when Donald Trump`s first impeachment trial in the United States Senate. He saw nothing wrong with Donald Trump trying to extort Ukraine`s President Zelenskyy by asking President Zelenskyy to smear Joe Biden in exchange for Donald Trump sending military aid to Ukraine.

Pat Cipollone agreed with Donald Trump that his extortion phone call to President Zelenskyy was a perfect phone call. We learned today that Ali Alexander, who was involved in organizing the Trump rally on January 6th that occurred before the attack on the Capitol testify to a Washington D.C. grand jury on Friday, which is just about six months after he testified in an eight hour deposition to the January 6th Committee.

So, Pat Cipollone knows that the Washington, D.C. grand jury is operating about six months behind the January six committee`s investigation. So, if he tries to fight this subpoena, he might be facing another one. Six months from now, with no way out from that one.

Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He`s a member of the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol. He served as lead impeachment manager in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

It seemed to me the speed of the Cipollone subpoena, the day after that testimony yesterday -- seems to indicate that this was a plan, that you would get this testimony where Pat Cipollone`s in the thick of it, all the way through the testimony, which clearly justifies the subpoena sent today.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, Pat Cipollone is a material witness. He has a huge volume of relevant evidence. And he was there at every level of each of these assaults on democracy and the rule of law. So, he would know a lot about the president`s attempt to stage a mini coup at the Department of Justice.

He may know something about the counterfeit elector plot. He may know something about the -- Trump`s attempts to shake down different election officials, like Secretary of State Raffensperger. He certainly knows about the effort to force Mike Pence to step outside of his constitutional role and reject Electoral College votes. And, as we heard just yesterday, from Cassidy Hutchinson, undoubtedly he knew a lot about what was going on with armed followers of the president in the crowd. And the formation of a mob that came to storm the Capitol, to try to interference excessively did interfere with the counting of Electoral College votes.

So as the White House counsel, he has a lot to tell us. And I`m hopeful that we will be able to hear from him soon.

O`DONNELL: Did he say anything in his discussion with the committee back in April that contradicts anything we heard from Cassidy Hutchinson yesterday?

RASKIN: I can`t reveal anything about anybody`s private conversations with the committee at this point. But when anything is ready to be revealed, you will know it, obviously. And anything that`s relevant and significant, I think we will make public.

But at this point, I`ve not seen anything that has contradicted, on the record, anything that Cassidy Hutchinson said. I know there are now anonymously sourced allegations about what someone is saying or what someone might say. That`s very different from someone going under oath and contradicting it.

I found her to be an entirely credible witness, who spoke with great candor and honesty to the committee. But if other people have other interpretations of particular incidents or events I would love to hear from them as well. But nobody has contradicted the central important evidence that came out yesterday.

Donald Trump knew that he had heavily armed followers in the crowd and in fact wanted to waive them in and take down the metal detector so they could blend in with the rest of the crowd, swelling the size of the crowd before the march on the Capitol.

[22:15:17]

Nobody has contradicted that. And that to me is the central and most important thing that we learned yesterday.

O`DONNELL: You showed additional witnesses on the video today saying that they knew that Donald Trump wanted to go to the Capitol on January 6. One witness knew it before January 6th. Another knew it on January 6th.

Have there been any witnesses testifying saying the opposite? Saying that, no, I know Donald Trump did not want to go to the Capitol on January 6?

RASKIN: No. I have seen multiple accounts that he wanted very much to go, and to be part of it. And, of course, he said he would be part of it. He said he was going to go with the rally. We are going to march to the Capitol, we will go to the Capitol, and I will be there with you.

In fact, there are a lot of rioters who later stated that they thought that Trump was somewhere in the crowd. You can see lots of visual evidence of people saying to the officers, Donald Trump invited us here. Your boss told us to come here, and they thought that they somehow how the participation on the sanction of Donald Trump in everything that they were doing, because he led them to believe that. Of course, both the House and Senate had majority votes finding that Trump had incited the insurrection, but now we have so much more evidence to show that he not just incited the insurrection, but he actually helped to form, it someone the mob, to create the event, and to stage the whole arrangement for the march.

O`DONNELL: Congressman Jimmy Raskin, thank you very much for leading off our discussion tonight.

RASKIN: You bet.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

And joining us now is Edward Caspar. He was one of lawyers representing eight Capitol police officers who have filed a civil lawsuit against Donald Trump for the attack on the Capitol.

Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

It seemed to me as I was watching the hearing yesterday that this was the most important discovery session that you have had so far. You know have evidence that the president knew that the mob that he was encouraging to go to the Capitol was equipped with weapons, weapons to go into battle with Capitol police officers.

What did you learn from the hearing tomorrow that you think affects your case -- the hearing yesterday?

EDWARD CASPAR, LAWYER REPRESENTING CAPITOL POLICE SUING DONALD TRUMP: That`s right, Lawrence. What`s the hearing did yesterday was bringing into sharp focus would lot of the public evidence already was suggesting. But the hearing yesterday made that concrete.

There can be no doubt now that the president intended to unleash a violent mob on the Capitol to use force to stop Congress from doing its job to certify the election. We heard yesterday how the president knew that the crowd that he assembled at the very time thought Congress was gathering to certify the election, they knew that the mob, the crowd, was armed and dangerous. And he knew that he wanted the crowd to go to the Capitol.

You know, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there was not only the Capitol that he was sending the crowd to. He was sending the mob to the U.S. Capitol police officers who where they are doing their job to protect it. They were brutally attacked by this crowd that the former president sent, and he needs to be held accountable for it.

O`DONNELL: It seems to me that a Washington, D.C. jury hearing this case, and seeing this evidence, they don`t need the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a criminal standard. In a civil standard, it is a more reasonable belief.

Do you believe that this is the way it was. It seems easy to see them returning $100 million dollar verdict for each one of these plaintiffs, $700 million, $800 million verdict against Donald Trump. This is the kind of case that could absolutely bankrupt him.

CASPAR: Well, one reason the Capitol police officers whom I represent are bringing this case is to see that this kind of thing doesn`t happen again. And for that to happen, the president has to be held accountable, because accountability is the deterrence that is going to pull this country back from the brink of authoritarianism. Once people see that he can be held accountable for engaging in this kind of political violence, we hope that this kind of violence will not be likely to happen again.

O`DONNELL: What more evidence do you need in terms of what you would need to present to a jury?

[22:20:04]

You have Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony that will be available to you by the time you get to a jury. You would presumably have the full report of this committee.

CASPAR: Lawrence, yes, I think that is right. I think the committee report is going to be incredibly important to aligning the kinds of evidence thought it is going to prove our claims. I think it is undeniable now, though, that the president intended to use force to stop Congress from doing its job. That alone is enough for us to hold the president accountable.

O`DONNELL: Edward Caspar, thank you very much for joining us tonight, really appreciate it.

CASPAR: Thank you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: And coming up, Congressman Jamie Raskin`s law professor was also Attorney General Merrick Garland`s constitutional law professor, and he was also Barack Obama`s constitutional law professor, and he is our next guest. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe joins us next, and when he speaks, I take notes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:25:43]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: It`s undeniable. It`s also painful for Republicans to accept. And I think we all have to recognize and understand what it means to say those words and what it means that those things happened.

But the reality that we face today as Republicans, as we think about the choice in front of us, we have to choose, because Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution. At this moment --

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: That is a largely Republican audience at the Reagan Library tonight, in California, where Liz Cheney was speaking. Here is more of what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: At this moment, we are confronting a domestic threat that we have never faced before. And that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic. And he is aided by Republican leaders and elected officials who made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man.

Now, some in my party are embracing former President Trump. And even after all we have seen, they are enabling his lies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Joining us now is Laurence Tribe, constitutional law scholar and university professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard Law School.

Thank you very much for joining us tonight.

I want to get an answer, if you have one, to what you think Pat Cipollone was worried about if Donald Trump went to the Capitol. He seems to think that that would have gotten, we -- he said we -- we will be charged with everything, if that happens. But it`s not clear to me what is added to the criminality, by Donald Trump actually going up to the Capitol.

LAURENCE TRIBE, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR: Well, that puts him in the middle of the action. He`s not just inciting. But he is aiding and abetting and participating in a violent insurrection, one whose violence he knows about.

When Pat Cipollone uses the word we, like you, I wondered whether that was the royal we. Whether he thought perhaps he should have acted sooner, perhaps he was involved with Donald Trump and his planning of these events. It was obvious that it was no surprise to Trump. It was a happy (ph) thing but no surprise, that the people who came to be with him were armed and dangerous.

In fact, he specifically said, take down the magnetometers so that these guys can come in with their ar-15s. I know they are not going for me. That was the most stunning and astonishing thing. Who would they be going for? Might it be Mike Pence, the very guy that Trump tried to get into trouble by saying that he was a coward after it looked like this mob had gone after pence, perhaps around the same time they had erected a gallows?

So, I don`t blame Mr. Cipollone. He may have some Fifth Amendment privileges to assert when he sits down. There`s no Fifth Amendment privilege to just stay home. And the idea that he has executive privileges triply defeated -- you know, it`s defeated by the fact that the current president holds the privilege. It`s the defeated by the fact that there`s crime fraud exception. It`s defeated by the large swaths of waiver that already seem to have occurred.

I could throw in another one. A lot of the conversations were not with the president. So, he has no legitimate basis for staying away and he surely doesn`t want to be a coward when he`s -- you know, somebody like this young woman, who was a real patriot, had the spine to show up and answer questions even though she was a loyal Trumper.

Visit link:
Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 6/29/22 - MSNBC

THE VIEW FROM HERE - While Sen Howard Bakers June 1973 Watergate question, What did the President know and when did he know it?, is pertinent to Trump, that question may be more relevant to associates like Mark Meadows, his Chief of staff, and to Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel to the President.

What did they know about the plans of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Gen. Michael Flynn, and attorney John Eastman to have Trump claim the Presidency from inside the Capitol?

Mark Meadowss assistant, Cassidy Hutchinson testified that Giuliani had said to her: Were going to the Capitol. Its going to be great. The presidents going to be there. Hes going to look powerful. Hes -- hes going to be with the members. . .The senators . . . Talk to the Chief [her boss Meadows]. He knows about it.

When Hutchinson told Meadows what Giuliani had said, Meadows confirmed that he already knew by replying, I dont know, Cass. Things might get real, real bad on January 6. When Giuliani said that Trump was going to be with the members, it meant that Trump was going to go inside the Capitol to the joint session where The House and Senate would be certifying the winner of the Nov 2020 election. The President may not appear before Congress unless Congress has formally invited the President. The US Constitution does not provide for the President to arrive after a mob has rampaged through the halls seeking to hang the Vice President, even if Trump thinks that is a good idea.

On January 6th before Hutchinson left with the Trump entourage to go to the Ellipse, a 52-acre park south of the White House fence, where the Stop the Steal rally was being held, Pat Cipollone hold her not to let Trump go to the Capitol. Clearly, both Mark Meadows and Pat Cipollone knew that Trump had plans to go, uninvited, to the Capitol. It defies belief that they would tell a 24 year old female assistant not to let the President to do something unless they had already failed to dissuade Trump from going to the Capitol.

Do Either Men Have a Privilege Not to Testify under Oath

Until this far right wing Supreme Court was seated, the Jan 6th Committee could legally force Meadows and Cipollone to testify. Legally, neither has a legal ground to refuse. Their strongest defense would be the attorney client privilege, but it is void when a client enlists his attorneys assistance to commit a crime. Pat Cipollone, however, may not assert the attorney-client privilege because Cipollone is not Trumps personal attorney, but rather he is White House Counsel. Trumps subverting the US Constitution would be outside any confidentiality with the White House Counsel.

While Meadows, as chief of staff, would assert executive privilege, the same logic applies to Meadows. Privileges fall in face of being part of a criminal undertaking.

Because there is no privilege, their next fall back would be the Fifth Amendment. The Jan 6th Committee, however, can grant immunity and compel them to testify.

The Political Problem of Meadows or Cipollones Testifying

Future Chiefs of Staff and White Counsel may feel hamstrung if there is precedent that they can be forced to divulge what they told the President and what the President said, did, or knew. Thus, the Jan 6th Committee realizes that it is dealing with Separation of Power issue. It cannot allow a President to force others to conceal his criminal, treasonous and/or delusional behavior, but Congress should not be able to invade the thought processes of Executive Branch.

We do not know if Meadows, Cipollone and others will testify that Trump knew that he had lost the election or that Trump believed that the election had been stolen. Was Trump a criminal or mentally ill detached from realty as Attorney General William Barr implied?

What Did Trump Believe Would Happen on Jan 6 and Why Did He Believe It?

Rudy Giulianis saying that Trump would look very powerful at the Capitol is bizarre. Why would Trump be at the Capitol? Why would he look powerful . . . with the members? Watching his supporters being beaten back by the Capitol police would not make Trump look powerful. Bidens certification as President would not make Trump look powerful.

Trump always has to be the center of attention since that is part of his Histrionic Personality Disorder. The image which Trump must have had in his mind was his standing before the Joint Session in the House Chamber and being declared winner of the November 2020 election. In brief, Meadows and Cipollone knew that Trump was delusional.

Pences Refusal to Violate His Oath of Office Called for Plan B -- A Violent Insurrection

As Pence was refusing to violate his oath of office, Trump supporters devised a back up plan an armed insurrection to take over the Capitol. Thats why Trump did not care that his crowd had AK-15's and body armor. They would need guns to stop the steal.

The incident in the Beast, the Presidents SUV, conclusively proves that Trump intended to go to the Capitol with an armed mob. After Trump was physically returned to the White House against his will, he was gleeful at the violent insurrection. Did he think that as soon as the mob breached the Capitol and the traitor Pence was dead, then he would go down to The Capitol to claim the Presidency?

NOTE: Meadows and Cipollone likely had told the Secret Service not to take Trump to the Capitol. Cipollones telling the same thing to Cassidy Hutchinson indicates that he wasnt confident that the Secret Service would bring Trump back to the White House. Thus, Meadows and Cipollone wanted a 24 year old woman to prevent a coup of the US government. Their valor shall be Chapter I in the Profiles of Cowardice!

Again, What did Trump Believe?

Did Trump believe that he had won both the electoral college and the popular vote? Did he believe himself to be the nations savior? Paranoia has been described as symptomatic delusions of persecution and/or grandeur. What could fit the description more perfectly than Trumps falsely believing that he had won the US Presidency? More grandiose would be his belief that as the leader of an armed insurrection, he could stride into the House Chamber and force Congress to certify him as President.

(Richard Lee Abrams has been an attorney, a Realtor and community relations consultant as well as a CityWatch contributor. You may email him at[emailprotected])

Read the original post:
What Did Trump Know and When Did He Know It? - City Watch