Mediaboss Marketing

Texas State Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of train project seizing private land, but in accordance to the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

DALLAS The company proposing a $30-billion projectto build a high-speed bullet train that will shorten the commute from Dallas to Houston by two and a half hours received a win on Monday, but it may come at a cost to landowners.

On Monday, the Texas State Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision in favor of Texas Central's project that'll run through Central Texas and said the organization was entitled to private land of the planned trail connecting the two major cities on the basis of "eminent domain."

"Eminent domain" is a Fifth Amendment right from the Bill of Rights that says the government can seize privately-owned property, but as long as they pay for it.

In the High Speed Rail Alliance's article, Texas Central can pay fair-market rates to acquire the land needed to construct the 240-mile railway, which would turn a four-hour drive into a 90-minute train ride.

The commute from Dallas to Houston is one of the fastest growing super commute in the country. Part of that commute is a stretch of Interstate 45 was ranked the nation's most dangerous road in America,according to our sister station KHOU.

Texas Central celebrated this Supreme Court decision, in a quote from our sister station in Dallas, WFAA, saying, "We are appreciative to the Texas Supreme Court for their time and consideration of this important issue as we continue work on this innovative high-speed passenger train rail."

Read more:
Possible Texas bullet train gets major win, but at the cost of landowners - KCENTV.com

At the end of last week, the U.S. House passed an agreement backed by Democrats and some Republicans on gun safety measures.

The proposal, which was hammered out by U.S. Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, authorizes $750 million over five years to the states for red flag laws over five years, including funds for mental health efforts. The bill also sends $12 billion to other mental health funds and $300 million for school security. The legislation would also end the boyfriend loophole so that domestic abusers who do not live with the partners they abuse would not be able to buy a gun. The bill also expands background checks to include looking at juvenile records for 18-21 year-old gun buyers.

After the U.S. Senate passed the measure on a 65-33 vote earlier in the week, the House followed suit on a 234-193 vote. Fourteen Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida, voted with the Democratic majority. Outside of Salazar, party lines held in the Florida delegation.

President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on Saturday.

Democrats from the Sunshine State presented the new law as a step forward for public safety.

No parent should fear for their childs life when they go to school, the grocery store, their church, a movie theater, or anywhere else they are supposed to be safe, said U.S. Rep. Lous Frankel, D-Fla. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is a step forward that will help protect our children and save lives.

For too long, our countrys gun violence epidemic has ravaged communities everywhere, and I am tired of burying young black boys, said U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla. Finally, Congress has listened to the cries of the victims of gun violence and rebuked the gun lobby. I am proud to vote for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and deliver real solutions in our fight to prevent gun violence and address its root causes.

This legislation is a long-awaited mark of progress, but our work is not done. I have long advocated for increased funding for mental health provisions and additional care for our schoolchildren by building pathways away from violence, but until we ban assault weapons, we are nowhere near the finish line. I will not stop fighting until weapons of war are removed from our streets. Today is a small but necessary step in the right direction to honor the countless victims, families, and survivors who continue feeling the pain of gun violence, Wilson added.

Republicans in the Florida delegation insisted the proposal undermines the Second Amendment.

Democrats see the United States Constitution as an inconvenience and will stop at nothing to legislate away the fundamental rights established in the Bill of Rights in their ruthless grab for control over the American people. The Safer Communities Act of 2022 is a knee-jerk reaction bill that tramples the Second Amendment and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in attempting to do something. Contrary to the narratives in the media, Republicans have children too and the safety of our most vulnerable is of utmost importancebut we cannot erode our constitutionally assured freedoms in the name of making us safer, said U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.

While I support some elements of this legislationsuch as the expansion of mental health services, penalties for illegal trafficking of firearms, and school hardeningI am vehemently opposed to key sections of this legislation. My no vote today reflects my direct opposition to provisions in the bill that add duplicative and hindering background checks and the blatant assault on Americans Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights through the support of unconstitutional Red Flag Laws. In the wake of tragedy, the easy decision is to buckle under the political headwinds of bully pulpits and political positioningbut the day we fold our constitutional rights in the face of adversity is the day our republic dies, he added.

I am voting against S.2938, the Senates gun control bill. While the bill contains good provisions recognizing the underlying mental health issues behind most of these violent attacks, I am concerned that it does more to chip away at law-abiding citizens Second Amendment rights than prevent violent crimes. It authorizes spending to incentivize state actions without sufficient guardrails to ensure Americans due process rights are protected. I have, and will, continue to work to identify and tackle the root causes of violent crimes, while making sure that such solutions do not infringe upon those lawfully exercising their constitutional rights, said U.S. Rep. Dan Webster, R-Fla.

In recent years, Florida has improved communication among law enforcement agencies and provided key investments in mental health and school safety. As a result of these actions and federal laws that already exist to harden schools, support mental health care, and require extensive background checks, Floridas schools, students, and communities have been made safer without eroding the Second Amendment or due process protections, he continued.

Originally from Jacksonville, Kevin Derby is the editor of Florida Daily and covers politics across Florida. Reach Kevin at kevin.derby@floridadaily.com

Continue reading here:
Florida Delegation Breaks on Party Lines-With One Exception-on Gun Vote in the House - Florida Daily

It was nearly six years ago when Donald Trump made a comment at a Florida rally he probably wishes he could take back.

The mob takes the Fifth Amendment, the then-candidate said at the time, deriding those who assert their right against self-incrimination. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

It was a rhetorical question that came to mind during yesterdays Jan. 6 committee hearing, as Vice Chair Liz Cheney thanked the witnesses for participating in the proceedings. From the transcript:

[I]ts been an honor to spend time with you and with our previous witnesses here today. To date, more than 30 witnesses called before this committee have not done what youve done, but have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

That number stood out, in part because its such a large total, and in part because its much higher than we previously knew.

Circling back to our earlier coverage, there are several high-profile figures from Team Trump whom we already knew pleaded the Fifth:

If Cheneys comments were accurate, however, were not talking about five people from Team Trump who were concerned about giving self-incriminating answers; were talking about 30 such people.

To be sure, Americans have these rights under the Constitution. If members of the former presidents team have reason to be concerned about possible prosecution, its not too surprising that their legal counsel would encourage them to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.

Whats more, its also worth noting that Cheney wasnt specific about who these people were, and its at least possible that some of the group didnt work for the Trump administration or the former presidents political operation.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the total number of people taking the Fifth is much higher than previously known.

As for the context, the top Republican quickly added that she has a specific witness in mind whom shes eager to speak with.

The American people have not yet heard from Mr. Trumps former White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, Cheney said. Our committee is certain that Donald Trump does not want Mr. Cipollone to testify here. Indeed, our evidence shows that Mr. Cipollone and his office tried to do what was right. They tried to stop a number of President Trumps plans for Jan. 6. Today and in our coming hearings you will hear testimony from other Trump White House staff explaining what Mr. Cipollone said and did including on January 6th. But we think the American people deserve to hear from Mr. Cipollone personally.

A person close to Cipollone told NBC News late yesterday, Pat has been cooperative with the committee with President Trumps permission, but there are serious institutional concerns and privilege issues and those have been recognized by the committee.

Watch this space.

The House Jan. 6 committee is holding its fifth public hearing on Thursday, June 23 at 3 p.m. ET. Get expert analysis in real-time on our liveblog atmsnbc.com/jan6hearings.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

See original here:
How many Trump insiders pleaded the Fifth in the Jan. 6 probe? - MSNBC

FOX News contributor Andy McCarthy reacts to Thursday's January 6th Committee hearing: "The last thing that Representative Cheney did was point out is that Jeff Clark took the Fifth when he was asked the same questions that they were asking the witnesses. If a prosecutor brought that out in a trial, that would be a mistrial. That's like a basic constitutional due process violation. For the life of me, I continue not to understand not only why this committee would not present a different perspective when they have witnesses that could clearly deal with cross examination if there were cross examination. And then why do this very powerful presentation, which I think this last hour certainly was, and then at the end point out that people are taking the Fifth Amendment which they have a constitutional entitlement to do and the courts have said if you let that infect a fact-finding proceeding, it's a constitutional violation. I don't understand it."

Originally posted here:
Andy McCarthy: Cheney Pointing Out A Witness Taking The Fifth Amendment Is A Basic Constitutional Violation - RealClearPolitics

FLINT, MI -- One way or another, Rick Snyder will answer questions under oath about his role in the Flint water crisis in a federal courtroom on June 30.

And if, as expected, the former governor invokes his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself, attorneys involved in the civil bellwether trial will turn to the next-best thing -- hours of previously unheard videotaped deposition testimony given by Snyder two years ago.

Attorneys for Veolia North America said Wednesday, June 22, that they intend to call Snyder to the witness stand on June 30 and an attorney for Snyder told MLive-The Flint Journal that his client will be present but has been advised not to answer questions.

Snyder is among nine indicted current and former city and state employees facing criminal charges tied to the water crisis. Five of those nine have also been called as witnesses in the civil trial that started 19 weeks ago in U.S. District Court in Ann Arbor.

Snyder and the four other potential witnesses were ordered to appear in court and to answer questions they were asked during their depositions by Judge Judith E. Levy, but each has appealed her decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments on the issue of whether the five men waived their Fifth Amendment rights when they sat for depositions but not until late July when the civil trial is expected to have concluded.

Attorneys for Snyder, former Flint emergency managers Gerald Ambrose and Darnell Earley, former Snyder aide Richard Baird, and former Flint Department of Public Works Director Howard Croft have said their clients will invoke the 5th Amendment when called to testify unless required to by the Court of Appeals.

Each of the five testified in depositions before they were charged with crimes in January 2021.

The civil case Levy is presiding over involves four Flint children who have sued Veolia and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam for professional negligence.

The companies each advised the city during the water crisis, and attorneys for the children claim they are partially responsible for injuries their clients suffered after drinking Flint water, which had elevated levels of lead.

Veolia and LAN dispute the childrens injuries and have said government officials like Snyder are solely responsible for any damages they suffered.

Snyders testimony -- in person or through the use of his deposition -- should provide new information about the former governors knowledge of the extent of problems with Flints water system while he led state government in 2014 and 2015.

Hes said previously that the water crisis was a failure of government at all levels but has only publicly answered detailed questions about the situation in an appearance before the U.S. House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform six years ago.

In that testimony, Snyder said he was repeatedly assured by state environmental officials that Flints water was safe to drink even as residents insisted something was wrong with its color, taste and smell after the citys water source was switched from Lake Huron to the Flint River for 17 months in 2014 and 2015.

An expert at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tried to raise an alarm about the potential for lead contamination in the water system but was silenced, and Snyder has said he only learned that our state experts were wrong (and) Flints water had dangerous levels of lead in October 2015.

Attorneys for the companies are particularly interested in putting Snyder and the other criminal defendants in front of the jury because their answers, including their refusal to testify, can be considered as jurors determine what degree of responsibility -- if any -- the consultants have for damages related to the water crisis.

Levey said earlier this month that she plans to handle that questioning of Snyder as she did when Ambrose and Croft appeared in court -- outside the presence of the jury -- invoking their 5th Amendment rights, and triggering the playing of their videotaped depositions for the jury.

On Wednesday, a part of Earleys deposition was also played for the jury, and the judge has said Ambrose, Croft, Earley, Baird and Snyder will each be required to appear in person with the jury present to tell them they wont answer questions that could later be used against them in their criminal cases.

Ambrose is expected to be the first of the five to appear before Levy with the jury present on Tuesday, June 28.

Snyder was charged in January 2021 with two misdemeanor counts of willful neglect of duty. His case is pending in Genesee District Court.

Earlier this month, a Veolia spokesman said the company was committed to bringing to the stand indicted officials such as Governor Snyder, former (Flint) Emergency Manager Darnell Earley, and other government officials so that Flint families and the public can finally hear the truth.

Read more at The Flint Journal:

Snyder can refuse to answer Flint water questions but only in front of jury

Former Flint water consultant vows to deliver Snyders testimony

Court of Appeals will hear Snyders arguments not to testify in Flint water case

Excerpt from:
Snyder to appear before Flint water crisis jury on June 30. Heres what to expect - MLive.com