Mediaboss Marketing

Austin, TX, February 15, 2021 The impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump came to an end on Saturday when 43 Senate Republicans voted to acquit Trump, blocking the 67 votes needed to convict him.

All 50 Democrats, joined by seven GOP senators, voted to find Trump guilty of inciting the storm of the Capitol on January 6.

Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) voted to acquit the former president just as they did a year ago after House Democrats impeached Trump on the basis that he allegedly withheld foreign aid to pressure Ukrainian officials into investigating the Biden family for corruption.

Cornyn and Cruz condemned the violence that took place at the Capitol and have said that those who participated in it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The arguments of the House Impeachment Managers that the Constitution permits the impeachment of a private citizen, the free speech protections of the First Amendment dont apply, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is optional, and that the trial may include a presiding officer who also serves as a juror all were a bridge too far, said Cornyn.

But Texas senior senator said that his ultimate reason for opposing conviction was a concern about establishing a dangerous, and sure to be used in the future, precedent of impeaching a former President after he or she has left office.

This practice would, I fear, make impeachments a routine part of our political competition as a tool of the majority party to exact political revenge over the minority party. Given that the Constitution makes legal offenses committed while in office subject to investigation and prosecution, as warranted, after a President is no longer in office, I believe that is the Constitutional method of accountability not impeachment, said Cornyn.

While Cornyn focused his reasoning on the danger of setting a precedent of impeaching former presidents, Cruz was more pointed in his defense of Trump.

Donald Trump used heated language, but he did not urge anyone to commit acts of violence. The legal standard for incitement is very high and it is clear by the results of this vote that the House Managers failed to present a coherent standard for incitement, said Cruz.

The junior senator said that both sides of the political aisle, including numerous Senate Democrats and House Impeachment Managers, have used rhetoric similar to Trumps with phrases such as fight, win, and take back our country.

Using this rhetoric is not impeachable, whether made by Republicans or Democrats, said Cruz.

Unfortunately, this impeachment trial did nothing to bring the domestic terrorists who committed this heinous attack to justice. It merely satisfied Democrats desire to once again vent their hatred of Donald Trump and their contempt for the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, said Cruz.

Similar to Cornyn and Cruz, when the House voted on the new article of impeachment in January, every Texas Republican member except for Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX-12), who was quarantining after a positive COVID-19 test, voted against impeachment.

Every Texas Democrat in the House of Representatives, like last year, voted to impeach Trump.

Read this article:
Cornyn, Cruz Vote to Acquit Trump for a Second Time - The Texan

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA: A video has surfaced online showing a woman being confronted by police officers after she allegedly made a threatening social media post. The video shared on Reddits popular r/PublicFreakout page showed the woman identified as Angelique being confronted by Detective Horton from Palm Beach County, Florida after she allegedly claimed in a social media post that she would trespass and trash the property of a county commissioner.

After the cop arrived at the house of the woman, he asked her, You and some guy named Anthony were posting on social media that you were going to trespass on a country commissioner's property and dump trash on her property. Angelique reportedly first played dumb, but later pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid any legal proceeding. To which, Horton said, Alright, don't trespass; have a good night. However, the interaction did not end there as the woman continued defensively, So all this for that? This is just fearmongering of a citizen for nothing. She also asked for all the cops names and badge numbers. The woman then pointed towards a random woman who was near her property and accused her of trespassing. She even asked the officers to charge that woman.

READ MORE

Anti-masker dubbed 'Karen' argues with 17-year-old cashier, accuses store of 'discriminating' against her

'SoHo Karen' who falsely accused Black teen of robbing her phone in viral video says she was the one assaulted

The officer then responded, We are not going to argue. The woman then insisted, I have a right to ask questions." "You pled the Fifth, remember?" the officer reminded her as he avoided her requests. The video attracted a lot of attention online with one Reddit user saying, Being stupid is one thing. But being stupid enough to post a video of your stupidity... Well that's just a whole new level of stupid. Stupid. Another person wrote, Karens do it all of the time because theyre really arrogant enough to believe they werent wrong and that everyone will agree with them. The third user added: There are few things more annoying than these people filming police/citizen encounters, know enough to know to invoke their 5th amendment, and then continue to talk like the morons they are. You see it often with the 1st amendment auditor idiots too.

I would also submit that this kind of bullshit overall damages attempts at actual police reform. There are people who film the police when they are actually abusing their power, outright breaking the law or engaging in police brutality and those instances should be filmed. Asshats like this erode the legitimacy of those instances by emboldening the common thin blue line narrative, a user mentioned in the comment section while the second one noted, She kept talking because her privilege was triggered lol. Karens always gotta have the last word.

Recently, in an unrelated incident, a video of a woman has gone viral that showed her getting dragged out of a bar by her hair after she allegedly refused to wear a mask. The alleged incident took place at the Chattanooga Billiard Club when a female bouncer manhandled the woman, identified as Bliss Causby, and threw her out of the bar. The woman shared her ordeal on Instagram, where she shared the video of the episode and wrote, Last weekend I went out to a bar after dinner to play pool with friends... I was standing next to my table drinking a beer and a lady security cop asked me to leave for not having on my mask... I questioned her and she became very aggressive and pushed me...I told her not to put her hands on me that I would leave and this happened.. she threw me down and dragged me across the bar on the floor like an animal..what this video taken by a bystander @barstoolmocs does not show is that she proceeded to punch me in the face and head and kick me..."

Visit link:
Florida woman confronts cops who warned her after she threatened to dump trash on county commissioner's proper - MEAWW

On January 28, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued its fifth amendment[1] to the Declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) related to COVID-19 (the Declaration), entitled Fifth Amendment to the Declaration Under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act for Medical Countermeasures Against COVID19 and Republication of the Declaration (hereinafter the Fifth Amendment).[2] This latest amendment adds additional categories of qualified persons authorized to prescribe, dispense and administer FDA-authorized, approved, or licensed COVID-19 vaccines in an effort to help states and U.S. territories meet the demand for vaccines and protect their communities as quickly as possible as vaccine supply becomes more widely available.[3] In turn, where the applicable requirements have been met (and subject to certain limitations), these additional qualified persons, as covered persons under the PREP Act, [4] will be afforded liability protections in accordance with the PREP Act and the terms of the amended Declaration.

Most notably, the Fifth Amendment:

This latest amendment is effective as of January 28, 2021.

[View source.]

Continued here:
Fifth Amendment to PREP Act Declaration expands "covered persons" to increase workforce authorized to administer COVID-19 vaccines - JD...

On January 28, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Fifth Amendment to the Declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which expands the categories of qualified individuals authorized to administer FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines in response to the ongoing public health emergency brought on by the pandemic. Under the Fifth Amendment, doctors and nurses whose licenses expired within the past five years can now administer COVID-19 vaccines subject to certain training and observation requirements.

Although this amendment represents the fifth time the PREP Act Declaration has been amended, its the first such amendment issued by the Biden Administration. Given the further expansion of the PREP Act that the Fifth Amendment provides, it suggests the new administration is not inclined to scale back PREP Act coverageat least not in its first few weeks on the job.

To the contrary, in a press release announcing the Fifth Amendment, HHS Acting Secretary Norris Cochran remarked, the Biden Administration is broadening use of the PREP Act to expand the vaccination workforce quickly with additional qualified healthcare professionals, adding that [a]s vaccine supply is made more widely available over the coming months, having additional vaccinators at the ready will help providers and state health departments meet the demand for vaccine and protect their communities more quickly.

As we have reported, the PREP Act[1] provides sweeping federal immunity to a covered person for claims relating to the authorized administration or use of a covered countermeasure.In general, if all elements of the Act are met, a covered person is protected from suit and liability under both federal and state law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration to or the use by an individual of a covered countermeasure.[2] This wide-ranging immunity applies to claims arising out of contract and tort, and it also covers personal injury, property damage, as well as business-interruption loss.

The goal of the Fifth Amendment is to expand the available health care providers authorized to administer a COVID-19 vaccine beyond those licensed in each state. The Fifth Amendment seeks to accomplish this goal by, among other things:

The upshot of this amendment is that if a person is authorized under the Declaration to administer covered countermeasures like a COVID-19 vaccineincluding recently retired physicians and nursesany state law that prohibits or effectively prohibits such a person from doing so is preempted.

[1] 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d.

[2] Certain exceptions apply, including cases of wanton and willful harm that results in death or serious injury.

More here:
Fifth Amendment to PREP Act Declaration Expands the Ranks of Health Care Providers Authorized to Administer COVID-19 Vaccines - JD Supra

On January 28, 2021, HHS issued a fifth amendment to the Declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), expanding the categories of persons able to prescribe, dispense, and administer COVID-19 vaccines under the protections of the PREP Act (the Fifth Amendment).

HHS first issued a Declaration under the PREP Act in March 2020, providing liability immunity for medical countermeasures against COVID-19. There have since been four amendments to the Declaration, expanding liability immunity for various actions taken by qualified persons in furtherance of the COVID-19 countermeasures. In the Fifth Amendment, HHS now amends Section V of the Declaration to add additional categories of persons covered under the PREP Act as qualified to prescribe, dispense, and administer COVID-19 vaccines. The Fifth Amendment specifically permits the following:

To be covered by the protections of the PREP Act, the Fifth Amendment requires these qualified individuals to complete the CDCs COVID-19 Vaccine Training and, for healthcare providers who are not currently practicing or whose license or certification is expired, to undergo a period of on-site observation by a currently practicing healthcare professional.

The language of the Fifth Amendment can be found here. The press release issued by HHS is available here.

Read the original:
HHS Expands Categories of Persons Covered Under the PREP Act Who Can Administer COVID-19 Vaccine - JD Supra