Mediaboss Marketing

At least half a dozen Republican members of Congress sought pre-emptive pardons from President Donald J. Trump as he fought to remain in office after his defeat in the 2020 election, witnesses have told the House Jan. 6 committee, the panel disclosed on Thursday.

Mr. Trump had hinted at a blanket pardon for the Jan. 6 thing for anybody, Mr. Trumps former head of presidential personnel, Johnny McEntee, testified.

Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, appeared to ask for a broad pardon, not limited to his role in Mr. Trumps effort to reverse the outcome of the election. Mr. Gaetz even invoked the pardoned former President Richard M. Nixon as he did so, Eric Herschmann, a White House lawyer for Mr. Trump, testified.

He mentioned Nixon, and I said, Nixons pardon was never nearly that broad, Mr. Herschmann recounted.

Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama sent an email seeking a pre-emptive pardon for all 147 members of Congress who objected to the certification of Joseph R. Biden Jr.s Electoral College win.

A former adviser to Mark Meadows, Cassidy Hutchinson, testified that Mr. Gaetz, Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas, Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona all expressed interest in pardons.

She also testified that Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio talked about pardons but did not directly ask for one, and that she heard of newly elected Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia also expressing interest to the White House Counsels Office.

Taken together, the former White House aides portrayed members of Congress concerned about potential exposure to prosecution in the wake of their support for Mr. Trumps attempts to stay in power. And the accounts provided an extraordinary, under-penalty-of-perjury portrait of efforts to use a presidents broad clemency powers for nakedly political purposes.

In a statement, Mr. Perry denied seeking a pardon. I stand by my statement that I never sought a presidential pardon for myself or other members of Congress, he said. At no time did I speak with Miss Hutchinson, a White House scheduler, nor any White House staff about a pardon for myself or any other member of Congress this never happened.

Ms. Greene posted a clip of Ms. Hutchinson on Twitter and added: Saying I heard means you dont know. Spreading gossip and lies is exactly what the January 6th Witch Hunt Committee is all about. Mr. Gohmert also denied making such a request, and condemned the committee for how it has comported itself. Mr. Biggs similarly said that Ms. Hutchinson was mistaken, and that her testimony was edited deceptively.

Mr. Gaetz did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Brooks confirmed seeking a pardon, but said it was because he believed the Justice Department would be abused by the Biden administration. He released the letter he sent the White House, in which he said he was putting the request in writing at the instruction of Mr. Trump.

The fact that it had evidence that pardons were under discussion was previewed by the committee at an earlier hearing. And the panel previously revealed that a key figure in Mr. Trumps efforts to subvert the results of the election, the conservative lawyer John Eastman, had emailed another Trump lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, after the Capitol riot, asking to be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works.

Mr. Eastman appeared before the committee and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination repeatedly.

It is unclear whether Mr. Gaetzs reported request for a blanket pardon was driven by concerns about his attempts to overturn the election or other potential criminality. At the time Mr. Gaetz made the request, he had just come under Justice Department investigation for sex-trafficking a minor. He has not been charged.

The question of who was getting pardons, and for what, was a source of enormous consternation in the final days of the Trump White House. The House select committee is using the information about the pardons to describe a broader effort to protect people who carried out Mr. Trumps desires.

In his final weeks, Mr. Trump randomly offered pardons to former aides who were jarred because they were not sure what he thought they had done that was criminal, two former officials have said.

Among the concerns that Mr. Brooks cited was that he and other Republicans would be targeted by an incoming Justice Department, as he asked for pardons for the objectors to the certification, as well as supporters of a lawsuit Mr. Gohmert filed to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject Mr. Bidens win on Jan. 6.

The White House Counsels Office and Mr. Herschmann argued strenuously against the pardons for members of Congress, and Mr. Trump did not grant them.

With only hours left in office, Mr. Trump issued a pardon to Stephen K. Bannon, his former White House adviser, wiping out federal charges that accused Mr. Bannon of defrauding political donors who supported building a border wall that Mr. Trump had pushed for.

In the weeks that preceded the pardon, Mr. Bannon had taken an active role in trying to keep Mr. Trump in office by promoting his claims of fraud. He also helped to devise a plan later known as the Green Bay Sweep to persuade members of Congress to block the normal counting of Electoral College votes by repeatedly challenging the results in various swing states.

Mr. Trump also gave pardons to his allies who were targets of the investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russian officials in 2016. Some of them were supporters who also backed and amplified his efforts to stay in power.

One was Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, who had pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the F.B.I. about his dealings with a Russian diplomat. The case was later dropped over concerns about procedural issues.

Over the weeks after his pardon around Thanksgiving in 2020, Mr. Flynn appeared at so-called Stop the Steal rallies, speaking in support of Mr. Trumps baseless claims that the election had been stolen. Working with others like the business executive Patrick Byrne and the pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell, Mr. Flynn also promoted an effort to persuade Mr. Trump to use his national security apparatus to seize voting machines across the country in a bid to eventually rerun portions of the election.

In late December 2020, Mr. Trump granted a pardon to Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime ally and informal adviser, who had been investigated in connection with the Russia inquiry and maintained his innocence. That move came five months after Mr. Trump commuted Mr. Stones 40-month sentence stemming from his conviction on charges of obstructing a congressional investigation into Mr. Trumps 2016 campaign and possible ties to Russia.

Much like Mr. Flynn, Mr. Stone used social media and speaking engagements at Stop the Steal rallies to amplify and bolster Mr. Trumps false claims about the election. Mr. Stone has adamantly denied that he had any personal role in fomenting the violence that day.

Luke Broadwater contributed reporting.

See the original post here:
Panel Provides New Evidence That G.O.P. Members of Congress Sought Pardons - The New York Times

East, west or beyond, sooner or later events elsewhere may have a local impact.

A recent sampling:

-Swedish manufacturer Modvion is making wind turbines out of wood. Their first prototype was 100 feet tall; theyre now working on a 300-foot model. Components include laminated veneer lumber. By not using steel

the lumber is expected to slash production of carbon emissions by 90%. The laminated boards are said to be better able to withstand high humidity, the Optimist Daily reported.

-A sketch of the third Jan. 6, 2021, House Committee hearing held June 16: an emphasis was laid on people in the U.S. have the right to choose their leaders; it is not made by just one person. Judge Michael Luttig, highly regarded in conservative legal circles, stated that Donald Trumps plan was to destroy democracy and overturn rule of law, and that danger has not passed.

Again, significant testimony came from within the ranks of those at elevated positions in Trumps administration. It revealed that instead of following the 1887 Electoral Count Act, Trump wanted Vice President Mike Pence to toss out votes for Joe Biden, under a plan developed by law professor John Eastman, [Eastman is a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, the only Justice to support Trumps effort to withhold documents from the Jan. 6 committee; his wife has been asked to testify about her role in attempting to undo election results. The committee has an email between Ginni Thomas and Eastman].

Eastman himself called his own plan illegal (in October 2020), and told Trump it was (along with telling numerous others). A judge testified that the vice president did not have any right to throw state votes out by calling them disputed, and there was no historical or legal precedent that the vice president could instead certify any proposed alternative electoral slates.

Nonetheless, testimony revealed continuation of efforts to create a second slate of pro-Trump electors, despite numerous White House players calling Eastman crazy and his plan legally indefensible. A Trump attorney testified that Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani agreed the Eastman plan could not stand up in court.

Giuliani later told the crowd at the Capitol that the Eastman theory was correct, then falsely claimed Thomas Jefferson had even used it.

Trump pressured Pence to play along, Pence refused, then Trump tweeted that he and Pence were in total agreement about changing the election outcome, an effort to corner Pence. Trump continued to badger Pence, to which Pence responded that his oath to support and defend the constitution prevented him from determining which electoral votes should be counted and which should not. After violence broke out at the Capitol, Trump tweeted that Pence did not have the courage to do what needed to be done, and the violence increased. Pence and his family were evacuated.

A Proud Boy member testified that, had Pence been found, he would have been killed (a mob was chanting hang Mike Pence); they missed finding him by 40 feet. Eastman persisted with his election-altering plan even after Jan. 6, and was advised that he would need a great effing criminal defense attorney, at which time Eastman put it into writing that he wanted a pardon.

In front of the House committee he took the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination over 100 times. The next day a member of the House Select Committee said new evidence is breaking every single day now. Suddenly, a lot of people want to tell the truth.

Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos says in her upcoming book that she and other Cabinet members talked about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office, MSN reported. She resigned Jan. 7, stating Trumps rhetoric was at fault for the Jan. 6 riot that resulted in nine deaths.

-Ukraine-Russia headlines: US sending $1 billion more military aid to outgunned Ukraine; Russian journalist sells Nobel Prize for Ukrainian children; Kremlin claims captured American vets not protected by rules of war [which may mean the death penalty for firing at our military guys.]

-Blast from the past: 50 years ago this month a taped-open door led to the discovery of burglars in the

Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building in Washington, D.C. The burglars were called plumbers, as in those who stop leaks; they were planning to install wiretaps. Then-President Richard Nixon was concerned about leaks. The plumbers were part of a crew who sought to control the political conversation by sabotaging opponents (such as planting fake letters in newspapers, placing spies in Democrats campaigns and wiretapping). It was pre-election, and the story gained no traction. Nixon won re-election.

But the story shifted when one of the burglars wrote to a judge that hed been pressured to protect government officials, and therefore lied. The judge made the letter public, White House counsel began cooperating with prosecutors, and by April three of Nixons top advisors resigned. Nationally televised hearings began, and it was revealed that, contrary to Nixons denial of involvement, he had discussed the burglary over 30 times.

Then the existence of White House tapes was discovered, which Nixon refused to share. Heads rolled, as in firings and resignations, but eventually the tapes were released.

Articles of impeachment were passed in late July of 1974 and in early August 1974 Nixon resigned. Gerald Ford became president and granted Nixon a pardon. Roger Stone, a Nixon operative and political advisor to Trump, has a portrait of Nixon tattooed on his back.

Follow this link:
Bits n' pieces from east, west and beyond - The Western News

Vicki Baker (Institute for Justice).

Yesterday, a federal court jury awarded Vicki Baker $59,656 in takings compensation because her house was severely damaged by a police SWAT team trying to apprehend a fugitive who had holed up inside. The April 29 federal district court ruling in Baker v. City of McKinney that made the jury verdict possible is potentially more significant than the verdict itself. I think the decision is correct. But it is at odds with several previous federal court decisions (in other circuits), which have held that property owners are not entitled to "just compensation" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when police damage or destroy property in the course of law enforcement operations.

The Tenth Circuit's 2019 decision in Lech v. Jackson is a notable recent example of cases where courts have ruled that the "police power" exception to takings liability applies in these kinds of cases (I criticized Lech here). The facts of Lech were very similar to those of Baker. In both cases, police inflicted massive damage on an innocent owner's home in order to try to smoke out a fugitive. Fortunately, District Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas wasn't bound by Lech, because his court is in the Fifth Circuit, not the Tenth. In a very thorough opinion, he explained why chose to rule a different way [I have not been able to find an open-access copy of Baker on the internet; but it is available on Westlaw and Lexis]. I don't agree with everything in his analysis. But he gets the bottom line right:

The Supreme Court has stated that a taking, within the meaning of the Takings Clause, includes any action the effect of which is to deprive the owner of all or most of his or her interest in the subject matter, such as destroying or damaging it.

[E]ven a minimal "permanent physical occupation of real property" requires compensation under the Takings Clause. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 427, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982). "When the government physically acquires private property for a public use, the Takings Clause imposes a clear and categorical obligation to provide the owner with just compensation." Cedar Point, 141 S. Ct. at 2071. Examples of physical takings include formally condemning a property through the power of eminent domain, taking possession of property without acquiring title, or even by recurrent flooding as a result of building a dam..These sorts of physical appropriations constitute the "clearest sort of taking"

Ignoring this jurisprudence, the City asks the Court to adopt a new brightline rule: destruction resulting from a legitimate exercise of the City's police power does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment

The City relies on decisions from other circuits that have wholly banned recovery as a matter of law where the destruction of property was the result of a valid exercise of police power. See Lech v. Jackson, 791 Fed. App'x. 711 (10th Cir. 2019) The most factually analogous to the case at bar is Lech.

Lech's decision rests on an untenable analysis of police power and eminent domain. The Tenth Circuit first held that in the police power context, there is no distinction between physical and regulatory takings, and any taking pursuant to a police power is categorically non-compensable. Id. at 717. Second, the Tenth Circuit decided that the destruction of the Lech's home was a valid exercise of the state's police power. Id. at 71819. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit denied the Lech's takings claim.

The Tenth Circuit characterized Mugler [v. Kansas (1887)] as the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged a "hard line between those actions the government performs pursuant to its power of eminent domain and those it performs pursuant to its police power in the context of regulatory takings." Id... But the Supreme Court made no such distinction. Indeed, the Lech court improperly extended the Supreme Court's purported holding in Mugler to physical takings cases, rather than treating physical takings differently than their regulatory counterparts.

This decision is prudent in the regulatory context where enactment of a rule or regulation by a state pursuant to its police powers is likely to have "tangential," "unanticipated," and unquantifiable effects on the private use of property. Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U.S. at 324, 122 S.Ct. 1465. Moreover, these unquantifiable effects can often be justified by pointing to the benefit to the public good. That is not the case in the context of physical takings.. Physical invasions of property made pursuant to a state's police powersBaker's case hereare "relatively rare, easily identified, and usually represent a greater affront to individual property rights," Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U.S. at 324, 122 S.Ct. 1465. These physical invasions represent such a greater affront to individual property rightsas compared to regulatory takingsbecause they often involve an "unoffending property [being] taken away from an innocent owner" with few easily identifiable benefits in return. Mugler, 123 U.S. at 669, 8 S.Ct. 273. In such cases, the property owner should be compensated for forfeiting the property for a public use..

Judge Mazzant makes many additional points, including emphasizing that the rule advocated by the City would, if applied consistently, effectively gut the Takings Clause, because all sorts of government actions can potentially be construed as exercises of the police power, given how broadly the latter has been defined. I covered this point in my earlier critique of Lech:

The fact that the "police power" may have been involved does not normally immunize the government from takings liability. As the Lech decision notes, the police power extends to government actions "for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare." Modern jurisprudence defines these concepts very broadly. Yet, in many contexts, courts nonetheless routinely rule that takings have occurred even though the purpose of the law at issue was to protect health or safety. For example, in the classic 1922 case ofPennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, the Supreme Court ruled that a prohibition on mining can qualify as a taking, even though its purpose was to protect the safety of people and property on the surface. Similarly, environmental regulations can sometimes qualify as takings if they destroy enough of the value of a property, even though their purpose is often to promote health or safety

Outside the context of law-enforcement operations, the fact that the government was trying to promote public safety does not create blanket immunity from having to compensate innocent owners whose property is taken or destroyed in the process. There is no good reason to exempt law-enforcement operations from takings liability of the same kind that applies to other government actions that might enhance public safety.

Indeed, as the Supreme Court recognized in the 2015 Horne case, the Takings Clause was inspired in the first place in part by revulsion at both British and American forces' seizure of property during the colonial era and the Revolutionary War. Many of these British actions were, of course, undertaken for the purpose of enforcing British law against recalcitrant colonists.

In December 2019, the US Court of Federal Claims ruled that the US Army Corps of Engineers was liable for a taking when it deliberately flooded numerous properties in Texas during Hurricane Harvey in order to prevent even worse flooding elsewhere. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could be liable for a taking when it inflicted recurrent flooding on property, even though the purpose of the flooding was to protect farm interests in the region. If the "police power" theory doesn't immunize the government in these kinds of cases, despite potentially massive benefits to public safety, it is difficult to see why law-enforcement operations should be given blanket immunity form takings liability.

Here, as elsewhere, if there really are great public benefits from the government's seizure or destruction of property, it should be willing to pay for the damage it inflicts on innocent owners. If, on the other hand, law enforcement agencies find that they routinely end up paying compensation that far exceeds any plausible benefit arising from the use of such aggressive tactics, then they would be well-advised to issue stricter guidelines for their employees. Maybe they should be more careful about destroying property in the future.

As Judge Mazzant notes in one section of his opinion, things may be different when the owner's property or his use of it itself poses a threat to public safety, as when it promotes the spread of a deadly disease, for example. I plan to return to this issue in future writings. But if an innocent person's land is damaged or destroyed merely to forestall a threat emanating from elsewhere - whether flooding or a fugitive criminal - then the Takings Clause requires compensation. As the Supreme Court famously stated in Armstrong v. United States (1960), "[t]he Fifth Amendment's guarantee that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."

Judge Mazzant's ruling might well end up being reviewed on appeal. Regardless, the issue of takings liability for destruction of property by law-enforcement agencies is likely to remain contentious for some time to come. Hopefully, more courts will come to realize that the police power is not a blank check to for cops to destroy innocent people's property without paying for it.

NOTE: The plaintiffs in this case are represented by the Institute for Justice, for which I served as a summer clerk when I was a law student, and have written pro bono amicus briefs in various cases more recently. I do not have any involvement in the present litigation, however.

See original here:
Federal Jury Awards $59,000 in Takings Compensation to Property Owner Whose House was Severely Damaged by SWAT Team Pursuing a Suspect - Reason

(Photo by PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

How many times will the Trump family plead the Fifth when they go under oath next month before New York Attorney General Letitia James?

Five hundred? One thousand? Do I hear two thousand?

Yesterday the states Court of Appeals rejected an eleventh-hour plea by the former president, Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump to avoid testifying in the AGs long-running investigation of the Trump Organization. Which means that the family has run out of road in their effort to avoid going under oath.

The ruling is hardly a surprise to anyone paying attention to the case. At a totally wacko hearing back in February, Trumps many lawyers tried to persuade Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron to block the AGs investigation.

Alan Futerfas argued that the existence of a criminal investigation by the District Attorney made it illegal for the AG to issue a subpoena, characterizing it as an end-run around the blanket immunity which would confer if the family were forced to testify before a grand jury.

Alina Habba argued that the investigation was tainted by bias, and the court should actually be investigating Tish James and Hillary Clinton.

And Ron Fischetti, the old bull, shouted angrily that My client cant take the Fifth Amendment. Itll be all over the papers! insisting that he didnt care whether Eric Trump took the Fifth 500 times, because My client is not Eric Trump! My client is Donald Trump!

Hell want to testify, he yelled from his video conference square, as if his inability to control his client were the courts problem.

In the event, Justice Engoron was unconvinced, ordering the respondents to turn over the contested documents within 14 days and sit for deposition within three weeks.

The reception at the First Department Appellate Division was no less chilly, with the court tossing the Trumps appeal within two weeks.

Youre asking us to eliminate dozens of years of precedent or act as legislators, Presiding Justice Rolando Acosta retorted when Futerfas restated his bizarre argument. Its not like you are unaware of your criminal jeopardy, in which case you can invoke your privilege against self incrimination. Thats the remedy that you have.

When the appellate court rejected their claim, the Trumps made one more Hail Mary pass to the states highest court. But they also signed a stipulation agreeing to go under oath the week of July 15 if their appeal was rejected. Which means that Don Jr. is probably standing in front of a mirror right now, doing his best Taxi Driver imitation, and shouting, You talkin to me? I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me. So I dont know who youre talkin to.

Theres always the off chance that the Second Circuit will take up the Trumps appeal of US District Brenda Sannes refusal to seize jurisdiction from the state court and make that mean lady stop investigating Daddy. Or Manhattan might be attacked by a flock of flying pigs you never know.

Liz Dyelives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

See the article here:
Trump Family Runs Out Of Road In Bid To Block Testimony To NYAG - Above the Law

The jurors in the Bill Cosby sexual assault trial came close to deciding the case on Friday, but their uncertainty over how to address some remaining issues in reaching a verdict led the judge to decide they should return on Monday to resume their deliberations.

Before they finished the second day of deliberations in the courthouse in Santa Monica, Calif., the judge, Craig D. Karlan, said the jurors had resolved most of the questions on a verdict sheet they were being asked to vote on. But there was no discussion of how the jury had voted on those questions including one that concerned whether Mr. Cosby should pay damages to Judy Huth, who says he molested her in 1975 at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles when she was 16.

One complicating factor is that one of the 12 jurors who sat through the two days of deliberations needs to be excused, the judge said, so an alternate will take a seat with the panel on Monday and the jurors will have to reconsider most of the issues.

Unfortunately, you will have to start from scratch, Judge Karlan said.

It is not clear, though, whether the inclusion of a new juror will have a substantial effect on the deliberations, because only nine of the 12 jurors need to agree on a verdict.

Mr. Cosby, 84, has denied having any sexual encounter with Ms. Huth. He has not been present at the trial, and did not testify after invoking his Fifth Amendment right, but he was heard by the jurors in a videotaped deposition saying that he did not remember ever meeting Ms. Huth.

Ms. Huths friend took two photos of Mr. Cosby and Ms. Huth together at the mansion, though, and they have been entered into evidence.

On Thursday, the jurors were given a verdict sheet comprising nine questions they had to answer in turn to help them reach a verdict and decide on any damages.

They had asked the judge for clarifications on a number of the questions, including one that dealt with whether Mr. Cosby was motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in Ms. Huth, a minor.

Over the course of 10 days of testimony, the jury heard Ms. Huths account that she and her friend had met Mr. Cosby in 1975 in a park in San Marino, Calif., where he was making the film Lets Do It Again.

She and the friend, Donna Samuelson, testified that Mr. Cosby had invited them to his tennis club, and then to the house where he was staying, where he gave them alcohol and got them to follow him in their car to the Playboy Mansion.

In testimony, Ms. Huth, 64, described how, in a bedroom at the mansion, Mr. Cosby had forced her to perform a sex act on him. Mr. Cosbys lawyers have described Ms. Huths account as a complete and utter fabrication.

More here:
The Jury in the Bill Cosby Sex Assault Case Says Its Close to a Verdict - The New York Times