Mediaboss Marketing

HIDALGO COUNTY, Texas (KVEO) More than 20 relatives of people buried at the Eli Jackson Cemetery have joined in a lawsuit to stop border wall construction near the gravesite.

On Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas heard arguments on whether to approve an emergency temporary restraining order filed from the relatives to momentarily stop Southwest Valley Constructors Co. from constructing the border wall near the cemetery.

According to the relatives, Southwest Valley Constructers are causing damage to the cemetery as well as to the church building and cemetery at the nearby Jackson Ranch Church and Cemetery.

The restraining order asks construction to not take place within 500 feet of the cemetery.

The construction company argues in court documents that damages at the site were present before construction began. They state there is no legal reason to halt construction for the restraining order or for the lawsuit in general.

However, the relatives claim the construction near the cemetery violates the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 19 and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as they have a property interest in the cemetery that would be harmed by the border wall.

While the court did hear the argument on Friday and faced evidence from both parties, court documents do not show that a conclusion was made on the restraining order.

The Eli Jackson Cemetery and Jackson Ranch and Cemetery are located about a mile from the Rio Grande River in a remote part of Hidalgo County south of Pharr.

Border wall construction is taking place north of the cemetery, which would leave the gravesite in a no mans land facing Mexico. Family members and visitors would have to pass through the wall in order to reach the cemetery if construction is completed.

The ranch was founded in 1857 by Nathaniel Jackson and Matilda Hicks who originally traveled from Alabama. The pair migrated to south Texas to escape the prejudices of interracial marriage found in Alabama.

Jackson used the ranch as a refuge for enslaved people who escaped from Texas or other parts of the south.

When Jackson died in 1865, his son Eli established the location as a cemetery as well. Veterans of the Civil War, Korean War, World War I and II, among others, were later buried at the site.

The Jackson Ranch and Cemetery were certified by the Texas Historical Commission in 1983. The Eli Jackson Ranch was certified in 2005.

Go here to see the original:
Restraining order filed in lawsuit to stop border wall construction near Eli Jackson Cemetery - KGBT-TV

Following the death of George Floyd during his arrest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, America experienced months of civil unrest throughout the country. It was during these protests that some began to assert that civil society in America was beyond repair and advocated for breaking the shackles of an allegedly oppressive and racially insensitive government. It was from this belief that the idea of establishing autonomous zones free from civil authority and independent from the United States was born. For the first time since 1861, calls for secession were acted upon, and protestors began to commandeer and blockade neighborhoods in major U.S. cities, thereby creating bubbles of autonomous rule within the United States. Protestors denied emergency responders and civil authorities entry to these autonomous zones, and prevented property owners from quietly enjoying their homes and businesses. For days, or even weeks, local and state governments ceded civil authority to the mob before being able to regain a semblance of control over these areas. The Red House Autonomous Zone in Portland, Oregon, demonstrates the negative impact autonomous zones can have on protecting a lienholders collateral assets. The property in question, called the Red House on Mississippi by activists, was owned by the Kinneys, an African American/Native American family. Following a default on their mortgage, the noteholder foreclosed on the property, and it was sold to a developer as a non-judicial foreclosure in 2018. The Multnomah County Circuit Court issued a writ of execution for eviction following a non-judicial foreclosure, and the sheriffs office served the Kinney family in September 2020. Thereafter, activists in support of the Kinney family occupied the house and denied the new owner access to the property. When the sheriff's department and Portland Police Department attempted to evict the activists in December 2020, the activists violently repelled law enforcement and established a three square block autonomous zone around the property. The creation of the autonomous zone impacted the entire neighborhood and not just the Kinney property. The activists defending the Kinney home were not local residents, but instead activists squatting on the Kinney property. The result was that the Kinneys neighbors, who did not ask to be part of the autonomous zone, were forced to become unwilling participants in the protest. Even though the City of Portland was able to negotiate an end to the autonomous zone, the activists still occupy the property and the city has taken no further action to evict them. Thus, the new owner, who has a court-issued eviction order, is unable to gain access to its property due to the governments refusal to utilize its civil authority to enforce the eviction order.Even though local governments were eventually able to regain relative control of these autonomous zones, a lasting impact remains. Emboldened by the lack of repercussions for defying civil authority, the establishment of autonomous zones is now seen as a viable protest tool. Moreover, in the case of the Red House on Mississippi, the local government is now unwilling to enforce court orders to forcibly evict unlawful squatters out of fear of creating unrest, thereby denying the holder of legal title to the property and its rights to quietly enjoy the property. In light of this, lienholders need to be aware of their options to mitigate the risk of losing a collateral asset if it becomes part of an autonomous zone. This article discusses considerations lenders should take into account if they are contemplating targeted lending policies to mitigate the risk that their collateral assets will be encompassed within an autonomous zone. Additionally, we discuss the recourse lienholders have if their rights are damaged due to the existence of an autonomous zone that results in the loss of a delinquent collateral asset.Underwriting Risk Mitigation PoliciesSome areas of the country are more susceptible to the establishment of autonomous zones than others. Lenders may be considering employing risk mitigating policies directed at areas deemed more susceptible to autonomous zone control in order to prevent the loss of their collateral assets. Possible risk mitigation policies may include:

While a lender may want to adopt these risk mitigating policies, careful consideration of federal and state law must be made before any such policy is implemented.While state consumer credit protection laws compliment the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, the state law may be more stringent than the federal statute. Therefore, the lender is required to not only conduct an examination of the proposed policy against the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act, but also against the state consumer credit protection laws in each state in which the lender intends to implement the policy. Failure to examine the proposed risk mitigation policy against applicable consumer credit protection laws may result in costly litigation in the future. If the risk mitigation policy is permissible pursuant to federal and applicable state consumer credit protection statutes, then the lender must also ensure that the policy is not discriminatory against a protected class. Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), implemented through 24 C.F.R. 100, lenders cannot disparately treat individuals based on their race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 24 C.F.R. 100.5(a). Meanwhile, under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), implemented through 12 C.F.R. 202, lenders cannot disparately treat individuals due to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); to the fact that all or part of the applicants income derives from a public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. 12C.F.R. 202.1(b). While the above referenced risk mitigation policies are neutral in nature insofar as they are directed at localities where state and local governments have historically ceded civil authority to protestors and are not directed at a protected class, lenders must be careful that these policies do not create a disparate impact on members of a protected class. If a lending policy has a disparate impact on a protected class, then it is impermissible, and may result in a discrimination claim, or worse a class action lawsuit, against the lender. Courts have held that [t]o establish a disparate impact claim, a plaintiff must show an outwardly neutral policy or practice that has a significant adverse or disproportionate impact on members of a protected group. Taylor v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 1062, 1068 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (analyzing disparate impact under both the FHA and ECOA). Additionally, [t]o establish a prima facie case under a[n ECOA] disparate impact theory, a plaintiff must identify a specific policy or practice which the defendant has used to discriminate and must also demonstrate with statistical evidence that the practice or policy has an adverse effect on the protected group. Powell v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 310 F. Supp. 2d 481, 487 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). Moreover, an analysis of a policys disparate impact is critical because it is anticipated that the incoming Biden administration will increase disparate impact enforcement. Therefore, lenders considering instituting targeted policies to mitigate the risk of the loss of collateral assets as the result of them potentially becoming part of an autonomous zone must conduct a careful disparate impact analysis before implementing the policies.Below are our recommendations to lenders who want to be proactive to protect their collateral assets from loss as a result of becoming part of an autonomous zone:

Thus, lenders should proceed with caution when considering implementing policies targeting areas where collateral assets may be at heightened risk of being annexed into an autonomous zone.Post-Autonomous Zone Recourse for Delinquent Collateral AssetsIf a lienholder finds that its delinquent collateral asset is now part of an autonomous zone, or if its collateral asset becomes delinquent as the result of its inclusion in an autonomous zone, all is not lost. The lienholder has recourse against the governmental entities that permitted the establishment of the autonomous zone, including a Fifth Amendment takings claim and/or an inverse condemnation claim under state law. Which claims are available to the lienholder is dependent on the status of the foreclosure proceeding, and the jurisdiction where the claims are filed.Government inaction or encouragement of autonomous zones frustrates the rights of those who have interests in property that becomes ensnared in the autonomous zone. This frustration of rights can give rise to a viable takings claim against the governmental entity that is impinging on the property owner's rights. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Under the Fifth Amendment, property owners may bring a takings claim when government action frustrates their use, enjoyment, and rights associated with the property, without providing just compensation. If the government is found to have engaged in an improper governmental taking by allowing the establishment of an autonomous zone, then the individuals and entities whose property rights were infringed upon are entitled to just compensation.Recent legal precedent indicates that a lienholder can bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim at any point during the foreclosure process if the government infringes on its interest in a delinquent collateral asset by allowing the formation of an autonomous zone. In HMC Assets, LLC v. City of Deltona, 2018 WL 647452 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that a mortgagee could proceed with its Fifth Amendment takings claim and its procedural due process claim. In HMC Assets, the mortgagee foreclosed on a parcel of real estate, and before a final judgment of foreclosure was obtained, the city demolished the building on the property without notice of the demolition or ordinance violations and fines leading to the demolition. As a result of the destruction of the structure by the city, the court held that the mortgagee was entitled to assert a Fifth Amendment takings claim against the city due to the resulting diminution in the value of the collateral property. The court reasoned that the United States Supreme Court has held that taking of a mortgagees rights without compensation can violate the Takings Clause. In addition, [u]nder federal law, a mortgagee possesses a legally protected property interest in the premises for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, HMC Assets suggests that mortgagees likely have standing to bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim and procedural due process claims against the government if the establishment of an autonomous zone infringes on a lienholder's interest in a delinquent collateral asset.There is precedent now available regarding the viability of a Fifth Amendment takings claim against the government related to the establishment of an autonomous zone. In Hunters Capital LLC, et al. v. City of Seattle, No. 2:20-cv-00983 (W.D. Wash. June 24, 2020), the plaintiffs, including residents, tenants, property owners, and small businesses in Seattles Capitol Hill neighborhood that have been harmed by CHOP, brought Fifth Amendment takings and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City of Seattle related to the city's alleged inaction and encouragement of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. The city attempted to have these claims dismissed on the basis that (a) the partial and temporary loss of property did not constitute a taking; (b) the plaintiffs failed to show direct harm caused by the city; (c) the due process clause did not require the city to exercise discretion to prevent private actors from harming other people; and (d) the city did not directly place plaintiffs in danger. However, the court sided with the plaintiffs and denied the citys motion to dismiss. The court held that Plaintiffs plausibly assert that the Citys endorsement of, and the provision of material support to, CHOP set in motion a series of acts by certain CHOP participants, who the City knew or reasonably should have known would deprive Plaintiffs of protected property interests . . . These allegations support the claim that the Citys conduct was causally related to [the] private misconduct and it was sufficiently direct and substantial to require compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Hunters Capital is still pending and the final resolution is unknown. However, the holding Hunters Capital, together with the holding in HMC Assets, suggest that lienholders have a viable Fifth Amendment takings claim against the government if it can be shown that the lienholder was deprived of a protected property interest as the result of the governments endorsement and material support of the establishment of an autonomous zone.In addition to a Fifth Amendment takings claim, a lienholder also can bring an inverse condemnation claim under state law if the government infringes on the lienholders property rights once it has legal possession of the delinquent property. Like a Fifth Amendment takings claim, those with sufficient property interests can file a state law inverse condemnation claim when the government takes their property without providing just compensation. Pursuant to the holding in HMC Assets, wherein the court held that under Florida law, a mortgagee such as HMC lacks standing to bring an inverse condemnation claim, lienholders likely will lack standing to bring a state law inverse condemnation claim before receiving a foreclosure order. Jurisdictions may vary on this issue depending on each jurisdictions interpretation of the scope of interests that grant standing to bring an inverse condemnation claim. However, once that order is received, and the lienholder has legal title to the property, then it can certainly bring this claim. Moreover, in relation to the Red House on Mississippi, the owner of the property is entitled to bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim and/or an inverse condemnation claim against the City of Portland.An aggrieved lienholder who has its interest in a collateral asset infringed upon by the government due to the establishment of an autonomous zone can bring its Fifth Amendment takings and due process claims directly in federal court. This would allow the lienholder to circumvent local state courts that may be less sympathetic to the lienholder's claims. In 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 204 L. Ed. 2d 558 (2019), that a property owner may immediately bring a Fifth Amendment takings claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to federal court once the property has been taken without just compensation. Knick overruled earlier precedent that required property owners to proceed through state court first. Specifically, [w]e now conclude that the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it. Additionally, [t]he availability of any particular compensation remedy, such as an inverse condemnation claim under state law, cannot infringe or restrict the property owners federal constitutional claim. Thus, Knick allows circumvention of the home cooking of state courts, which is beneficial for lienholders. Federal supplemental jurisdiction allows the lienholder to also bring any viable state court claims, including an inverse condemnation claim, in federal court together with the lienholder's federal constitutional claims. This allows the lienholder to avoid the possible biases held by local state court judges, and provides for a hopefully more objective evaluation of the lienholder's claims. ConclusionThe birth of autonomous zones has led to uncertainty regarding the protection of a lienholder's collateral assets, and raises new considerations that lienholders never had to consider in the past. Lienholders wishing to implement targeted risk mitigation policies for areas at heightened risk of autonomous zone control should proceed with caution prior to implementing such policies and should follow the steps outline above. The good news is that recent case law on this new issue suggests that a lienholder likely has a viable takings claim against the government, which can go directly to federal court, if municipal inaction and encouragement of autonomous zones frustrates the lienholders interests in a delinquent collateral asset.

See the rest here:
Mitigating the Risk of Loss of a Delinquent Collateral Asset in the Era of Autonomous Zones - JD Supra

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