Mediaboss Marketing

While there are not many days left in his presidency, Donald Trump remains an unparalleled menace to democracy. He must be removed from power and brought to justice as soon as possible. Each day we delay, we run the risk of catastrophe.

With news that Articles of Impeachment willbe introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives, a vibrant discussion abounds on whether this is the appropriate method of censure and removal. On Friday, Senate Majority Leader (for now) Mitch McConnell circulated a memo to colleagues outlining the process an impeachment might follow.

There is also talk of removing Trump from office by means of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. But while the debate has been healthy and spirited, it has for the most part been poorly framed because it presents a false either or dichotomy.

Donald Trump remains an unparalleled menace to democracy. He must be removed from power and brought to justice as soon as possible. Each day we delay, we run the risk of catastrophe.

As a matter of strategy, tactics and law, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment and impeachment can and should be pursued simultaneously. The remedies they offer are complementary, not in conflict.

The real question is not whether Congress should invoke either the amendment or pursue impeachment. The question is whether Congress has the will to take action quickly and decisively.

Ratified in 1967 in the aftermath of uncertainty following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment offers the quickest route to accountability.

The amendment sets forth a process and a detailed timeline for declaring a sitting President incapable of performing his duties, and transferring executive authority to the Vice President. To initiate the transfer, the Vice President and a majority of the members of the Cabinet need only sign a declaration asserting that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereafter, the Vice President shall immediately assume those powers.

The amendment also permits the President to resume office by signing a counter-declaration alleging his capacity to serve. But within four days of receiving the counter-declaration, the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet can keep the President out of power by signing another declaration of their own. After that, the issue of the Presidents fitness is committed to the Congress, which must make a final decision by a two-thirds majority vote within twenty-one days.

Vice President Mike Pence reportedly hasnt closed the door on invoking the amendment, but clearly, he must be pushed both by Democrats and the public at large to change his mind before Trump unleashes another MAGA mob to wreak havoc in Washington, D.C., or elsewhere, prior to the Inauguration of Joe Biden on January 20.

Should Pence do soand remember that he had his come to Jesus moment when, on the morning of January 7, he certified Bidens Electoral College victoryTrump would be unable to restore himself to power within the amendments timeline.

But whether or not Pence can be made to heed the call of history, Democrats should launch a second, high speed impeachment proceeding against Trump. A new impeachment resolution has already been drafted for this purpose, charging Trump with incitement of insurrection for sparking the failed violent coup attempt staged at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Even if the process cannot be completed before Inauguration Day, a second impeachment is a necessity.

Even if the process cannot be completed before Inauguration Day, a second impeachment is a necessity. Its principal goal would be to disqualify Trump from ever holding federal office again. It would also take from him the many perks (financial and otherwise) that are given to former Presidents under the 1958 Former Presidents Act. He would, however, continue to have Secret Service protection under a 2012 amendment to that act.

Normally, when we think of impeachment, we envision the removal of an official from office. But underArticle I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, judgments in cases of impeachment extend not only to removal, but also to future disqualification.

As I have written elsewhere, there is no legal bar to trying Trump in the Senate on a new article of impeachment after January 20. In 1876, theSenate conducted an impeachment trial of Secretary of War William Belknapeven though he had resigned before the House voted to impeach him for financial corruption.

While Richard Nixon was able to escape impeachment via resignation, the current House and Senate, now controlled by the Democrats, would not be bound by the Nixon example. Both chambers would be free instead to follow theBelknap precedentin the case of impeaching a former President, as severalleading constitutional scholars have indicated in interviews with the Washington Post in 2019. Impeachable offenses, moreover, arenot subject to the Presidents pardon power.

Given the growing sense of shame and disaffection in the ranks of the GOP, Trump should expect a full Senate trial in his second impeachment, in sharp contrast to the perfunctory acquittal he received in his first impeachment.

Witnesses would be called. Evidence would be presented. The whole world would watch as Trump and the fascism he has promoted are put on display.

No federal official in American history has ever been impeached twice. But Trump has always prided himself as being a norm-buster, and no American President has ever deserved harsher treatment.

No federal official in American history has ever been impeached twice.

A second impeachment would be a fitting conclusion to Trumps defilement of the presidency. Better still, if we maintain our vigilance and continue to press for accountability, a second impeachment could also be a prelude to future federal and state criminal prosecutions of Trump and his principal enablers.

We havent a moment to lose.

See the original post here:
Unequal Justice: Use Both the 25th Amendment and Impeachment to Hold Trump Accountable - Progressive.org

Updated at 4 p.m.: Revised to reflect statements from attorneys involved in the case.

The states highest criminal court agreed to review the murder conviction of Roy Oliver, a former Balch Springs police officer who fatally shot a Black teenager while on-duty in 2017.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals announced Wednesday that it will examine the case but will not hear oral arguments in the murder of 15-year-old Jordan Edwards.

Oliver, 41, was convicted of murder in 2018 and sentenced to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Jordan was leaving a party the night of April 29, 2017, with his two brothers and two friends when Oliver, who is white, shot into the car as it was driving away. Gunshots had been fired nearby by people unaffiliated with the party, and the other teens in the car have said they were driving away because they were afraid.

Oliver testified that he thought the car was going to hit his partner, who had responded with him to a complaint about a loud party.

During the trial, Olivers partner, Tyler Gross, testified he didnt fear that he was going to be run over by the car during the incident.

Mike Snipes, a former Dallas County prosecutor who won the murder conviction against Oliver, said hes not surprised to see the case move so far in the appeals process because of its significance.

We feel very confident about what we did procedurally and at trial during that case, and so I welcome the review, Snipes said. I just think at the end of the day, the conviction will be upheld.

Robert Gill, Olivers attorney, said the appeal is largely related to Garrity v. New Jersey, a 1967 Supreme Court decision that says law enforcement officers and other public employees have Fifth Amendment protections when they give a statement about an incident, meaning the statement cant be used against them in criminal proceedings.

Olivers lawyers argue that some information that Oliver gave in initial statements after he shot Jordan should have been withheld.

There isnt very much Texas law on the issue surrounding the Garrity case and an individuals Fifth Amendment rights ... so were glad to see the court wants to review that, Gill said.

Lee Merritt, an attorney who represents Jordans family, said the same issue that came up early on in the trial.

We actually dont have any issue with the review. We dont believe that particularly on that very narrow issue we dont believe that it will be significant enough to overturn the results of the case, he said.

Merritt said Jordans family continues to mourn his death and that their civil lawsuit is still active.

Oliver appealed his case to the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas, which ruled last August to uphold the conviction.

Olivers lawyers argued that a jury would have agreed that Oliver was acting to protect his partner had they received different instructions before deliberating.

There is no timeline for the Court of Criminal Appeals to make a decision.

Oliver is currently serving his 15-year sentence at the W. F. Ramsey prison in Rosharon, Texas.

Staff writer Dana Branham contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:
States highest criminal court to review murder conviction of Roy Oliver, ex-cop who killed 15-year-old - The Dallas Morning News

Donald Trump and his dwindling band of loyalists are planning a defiant final week in office. Citing sources familiar with Trumps thinking, Bloomberg News reported on Sunday that between now and January 20th, when Joe Biden takes office, Trump plans to visit the Mexican border, issue more Presidential pardons, and try, once more, to introduce some restrictions on Big Tech companies like Twitter and Facebook, which have kicked him off their platforms in recent days. Trump is confident Vice President Mike Pence and members of his cabinet will not attempt to remove him under the 25th Amendment, the Bloomberg story went on to say, and the President and his allies believe Democrats are overreaching by trying to once again impeach him over Wednesdays siege at the Capitol, and think Senate conviction would be unlikely.

With Nancy Pelosi and her House colleagues planning an impeachment vote in the next few days if Trumps Cabinet colleagues dont act under the Twenty-fifth Amendment, it is tempting to dismiss stories like this one as mere bluster from Trump. Unfortunately, that could be wishful thinking. Despite all the outrage sparked by last weeks riot, Trump still has grounds for believing that he wont receive any immediate sanctions for openly inciting an insurrection. Its conceivable that he could be punished further down the road, but even that is far from certain. Repeating a tragic pattern that has been evident since he launched his first Presidential bid, in 2015, the American political system is proving too weak and divided to deal with the threat he poses.

Lets start with the pitiful figure of Vice-President Mike Pence, who was whisked away from the Capitol during Wednesdays riot and seems to have been in hiding since. On Sunday, Hallie Jackson, NBC Newss White House correspondent, reported that Pence doesnt think its practical to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment and force Trump from office. Of course, the main thing ruling out such a move is the pusillanimity of Pence and other senior members of Trumps Cabinet. If the Vice-President, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin agreed to invoke the amendment, a majority of their colleagues in the Cabinet might well support them. All it would require is a bare majority vote, and Pence would take over as President.

To be sure, the aftermath would be messy. Trump could contest the Cabinet decision and appeal to Congress, where a two-thirds vote of both houses would be necessary to confirm his removal from office. But, in the interima period that would surely last through January 20thPence would be the acting President, and the danger of Trump doing something truly crazy again would be removed. Unfortunately, Trump is right. This isnt going to happen.

What about impeachment? On Sunday night, Pelosi said that the House would vote Monday on a nonbinding resolution asking Pence to invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and she called on him to respond within twenty-four hours. If he doesnt, the House Democrats will move ahead quickly with impeachment proceedings, Pelosi indicated. Since more than two hundred Democratic representatives have already expressed support for the idea, they shouldnt have any problem passing the articles of impeachment. The problem lies in the Senate, where Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader, is invoking procedural rules and saying a trial couldnt begin until January 19th, the day before Bidens Inauguration. McConnell is just playing games, Norm Eisen, a Washington attorney, who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the 2020 impeachment and trial of Trump, told me on Sunday. If McConnell were to call the Senate back into session this week, an impeachment trial could be completed in the next ten days, Eisen, who is also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, contended. He pointed out that two pieces of critical evidence in the caseincluding Trumps speech to his supporters on January 6th, and the transcript of his January 2nd conversation with Brad Raffensperger, Georgias secretary of stateare both freely available. The facts are clear; the law is clear, Eisen said. It is just a matter of two votes of courageone in the House and one in the Senate.

Sadly, there is little chance of McConnell doing the right thing. Even if he surprised everybody, assembling the seventeen Republican votes it would take to convict Trump would be a mighty task. In recent days, the G.O.P. senators Pat Toomey and Lisa Murkowski have called on Trump to resign, but neither of them has said that they would vote to convict the President. On Saturday, Toomey told Fox News that Trump had committed impeachable offenses. On Sunday, appearing on NBC Newss Meet the Press, Toomey said that Trump spiralled down into a type of madness last week. But Toomey also said that he didnt think there was time for an impeachment, adding, I think the best thing would be a resignation.

Since Trump clearly has no intention of resigning, that is a cop-out. And Toomey and Murkowski are two of the most independent-minded G.O.P. senators. Roy Blunt, the second-term senator from Missouri, is more representative of McConnells Republican caucus. My view is what the President should do is finish the last ten days of his Presidency, Blunt told CBS Newss Face the Nation on Sunday. The President touched the hot stove on Wednesday and is unlikely to touch it again.

Given the Republican Partys continued refusal to take responsibility for Trump, what can be done to bring a dangerous President to book? Some Democrats are concerned that starting the Senate trial as Biden takes office, which is the timetable that McConnell has put forward, could endanger the new Administrations policy agenda and its hopes of getting its Cabinet nominees confirmed quickly. One option that Pelosi and her colleagues are exploring is delaying the impeachment trial in the Senate, perhaps for as long as two or three months. Under this scenario, which Representative James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, laid out on Sunday, the House would pass the article, or articles, of impeachment this week but then hold off on passing them along to the Senate. Lets give President-elect Biden the hundred days he needs to get his agenda off and running, Clyburn, who is a close ally of Bidens, said on Fox News on Sunday. And maybe we will send the articles sometime after that.

If the only goal of impeachment is to prevent Trump from running again in 2024, delaying a trial might be a defensible option. The danger is, though, that it might lessen the pressure on Senate Republicans to vote for a conviction. With many G.O.P. members already trying to wriggle away from their responsibilities in the immediate aftermath of Wednesdays insurrection, how much less likely are they to answer the call in three months? Conceivably, a delayed trial could give Trump yet another burst of publicity at a moment when most Americans are hoping to be rid of himand then end with him claiming to have been vindicated.

One other option that is worth considering, Eisen told me, is invoking Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that anybody who has called for an insurrection against the federal government cant run for office. Trumps actions certainly seem to satisfy the statute, and Section 5 of the Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce it. Thats certainly something that should be in the mix, Eisen said. But we should lead with impeachment.

Whats required is a way to punish Trump for his sedition, make sure he cant run for President again, and deprive him of the oxygen he so craves. The permanent ban by Twitter goes a long way toward meeting the third goal, but the first two are arguably even more important.

In other democracies, a leader who tried to overthrow an election result and incited a violent insurrection might well be cooling his heels in prison by now. In this country, the job of policing the President falls largely on the legislative branch. For four years, it has failed dismally to carry out this task. Even after the unprecedented events of last week, its far from clear that Congress will prove up to the task now. But this time, surely, and for the sake of American democracy, Trump must be held accountable.

Originally posted here:
Trump Cant Be Allowed to Escape Justice Yet Again - The New Yorker

FridayJan15,2021at12:15AM

Should Joe Biden attempt to "look forward" and fail to hold the soon-to-be-not-president accountable for his actions, not only will he suffer the same ignominy that befell Gerald Ford in the wake of the Nixon pardon, but he will also guarantee a Democrat annihilation in the 2022 midterms and beyond.

The Democrats fortunes, however, are not the point.

Hoping to dodge the fallout that followed In the wake of Barack Obamas ill-advised (guided by "norms") decision to "look forward" after the misdeeds of the George W. Bush administration would be stunningly hypocritical. You simply cannot mouth the words "no one is above the law" and then short-circuit the law because its ... uncomfortable.

There is a massive record that exists already, used as a basis for the wholly successful impeachment by the House. The Mueller Report oft vilified but still left simmering spells out 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice. Start there, Merrick Garland. And subpoena those tawdry pardon recipients who no longer enjoy Fifth Amendment protections on the subject.

But look at everything because dozens of allegations go beyond the abandonment or destruction of the aforementioned norms. The past decisions of the DOJ, or the FBI, or any other body with jurisdiction not to investigate or bring charges are not dispositive. Take the time NOW to render essential justice.

While many smile at the prospect of orange jumpsuits lets all realize the result is less important than the process, if only marginally. A factual record is paramount, as it will guide the decision-making and legislation of the future.

To wit, Congressman Huizenga, your recorded vote on electoral certification will stand forever as a pathetic attempt to gloss over your recorded signature on Ken Paxtons unconstitutional lawsuit.

Some guidance is gained, and some lessons are learned, harder than others.

Richard Wolfe

Park Township

More:
Letter: Hard lessons we are learning - Opinion - HollandSentinel.com

Wrongful Conviction Podcast with Jason Flom

Now Free, and an Attorney, Marty Tankleff Sits Down With Jason Flom to Discuss His 19-Year Wrongful Conviction Nightmare

NEW YORK, Jan. 13, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In March 2007, Marty Tankleff was released from a 19-year prison nightmare after being wrongfully convicted of murdering his parents. In 2018, he was awarded an $18 million settlement from Suffolk County (in addition to a $3.375 million settlement from New York State). Last year, he was admitted to the New York State bar to work as a lawyer. And this week, hes revisiting his story on the hit podcast, Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom.

Marty was just 17 years old when his parents, Arlene and Seymour Tankleff, were bludgeoned to death in their Long Island home in late 1988. In June 1990, Marty was convicted and sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. His conviction was based largely on a confession that Marty gave after many long hours of interrogation by Suffolk County detective K. James McCready a confession that the teen recanted almost immediately and refused to sign.

Maintaining his innocence, Marty obtained pro bono legal assistance and persevered through multiple appeals filed in state and federal courts. New evidence emerged that pointed to Jerry Steuerman as the orchestrator of the murders. Steuerman, who had been partners with Martys father in a bagel store, was owed $500,000 by the elder Tankleff and had, according to Marty, threatened his parents with violence before leaving their home the night they were murdered.

A man named Glen Harris offered a sworn statement that on Steuermans orders, he had driven two hit men, Joe Creedon and Peter Kent, to the Tankleff home on the night of the murders. When Harris was denied immunity by Judge Stephen Braslow in a July 2004 hearing, Harris invoked his Fifth Amendment right and his testimony went unheard.

Evidence of Martys innocence continued to pile up, however. Another witness came forward to say that Creedon had told her of his involvement in the murder, describing how he and another man initially hid in the bushes outside the Tankleff home before running to avoid capture and disposing of their bloody clothing. In addition, evidence surfaced that the detective who had obtained the false confession from Marty had come under investigation for perjury.

In December 2007, Martys conviction was overturned by an appellate court ruling that Judge Braslow did not properly consider new evidence brought by Martys legal team. He walked free nine days later.

Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom has highlighted the stories of hundreds of wrongfully convicted men and women, from The Central Park Five and Brendan Dassey to Rodney Reed, Amanda Knox, and more. The series is a valuable resource for lawyers, criminal justice advocates, all citizens who are potential jurors, as well as the wrongfully convicted themselves.

Flom, the founder and CEO of Lava Records and a longtime criminal justice advocate, has been personally involved in the cases of hundreds of wrongfully convicted people. Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom is produced by Lava For Good Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.

Hear Martys mind-blowing story on http://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com or on all popular podcast streaming platforms.

About Lava for Good Podcasts:

Lava for Good Podcasts exists at the intersection of entertainment, inspiration, and impact. Produced by renownedmusic executive, children's book author, and philanthropist Jason Flom along with Lava Media COO Jeff Kempler in association with Signal Co. No1, Lava for Good Podcasts works directly with a highly-engaged audience to entertain, empower, and create a sense of participation and community impact. Its #1-charting lineup of criminal justice podcasts explores the interrelated topics of systemic racism, over-policing, and criminal justice reform and currently includes Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flom, Wrongful Conviction: False Confessions, and Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science.

Beyond the success and impact of the podcast series, Wrongful Conviction is now a multi-channel platform with podcasts, video content (through third-party partnerships with NowThis and Facebook) and livestream panel discussions hosted by Wrongful Conviction (such as the Power to the People civil rights panel) or created via a partnership media organizations such as Billboard and Vibe.

As the founder of Lava Media (which includes Lava Music as well as Lava for Good Podcasts), Flom is one of the most successful music executives in history, having backed and discovered superstar artists from Twisted Sister and Skid Row to Matchbox 20, Paramour, Kid Rock, 30 Seconds to Mars, Katy Perry, Lorde and Greta Van Fleet. He has also served as the chairman of Atlantic Records, as well as Virgin Records/Capitol Music Group. With his daughter Allison Flom, he is the co-author of the children's book Lulu is a Rhinoceros soon to be a major children's TV show.

For media inquiries: Dawn KamerlingThe Press Housedawn@thepresshouse.comwww.thepresshouse.com

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/6fb05459-b6eb-4f8d-8322-50038c71bb03

The rest is here:
Now Free (and an Attorney), Marty Tankleff Sits Down With Jason Flom to Discuss His 19-Year Wrongful Conviction Nightmare - GlobeNewswire