Mediaboss Marketing

According to the logic of a bill currently under consideration in the Missouri House, a churchs religious freedom rights should be overruled since some people may want to show up with a gun. Rep. Ben Baker (R-Newton) argued during a House General Laws Committee hearing Monday (Feb. 8) that a persons natural right to a gun should supersede a religious communitys right to adopt and communicate its beliefs. As a Baptist minister, I find this bill unnecessary, unconstitutional, and dangerous.

Missouri law currently automatically bans concealed weapons from houses of worship unless an individual receives the consent of the minister or person or persons representing the religious organization that exercises control over the place of religious worship. This makes sense. A religious community should be able to define for itself if they desire for individuals to bring guns into their holy place.

But Bakers HB 359 would switch the default position so that individuals with a concealed carry endorsement or permit could automatically bring a firearm into a house of worship unless that religious group posted significant signs at every entry. A church, synagogue, mosque, or other house of worship would not be able to determine its own policy regarding concealed guns without either accepting weapons or posting government-mandated signs on their sacred space.

The Second Amendment should not trump the First Amendment. Some groups hold deep religious convictions that lead them to oppose violence and weapons of any kind. Thus, Missouri legislators should reject a bill that targets those sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Oddly, Bakers bill only attempts to change the status of houses of worship, meaning many other locations would remain places where one cannot bring a concealed weapon without proper consent like a liquor store or a riverboat gambling operation or an amusement park. So, Bakers bill acknowledges by default that limitations on concealed carry do and should exist.

If passed, this bill would give liquor stores, gambling boat operations, and amusement parks more rights than churches to decide about guns on their premises even though houses of worship are protected by the First Amendment more than those entertainment businesses. This targeting of religious communities is wrong.

Theres not even a reason for Bakers bill because people can already bring their concealed weapons into churches. Baker admitted during testimony that he does since his pastor allows it. A member of the committee even said he used to preach from a pulpit with a concealed gun strapped on. If a religious community wishes to allow concealed weapons, they already have that right. And if a house of worship doesnt want weapons in their building, someone who disagrees with that decision is free to worship elsewhere.

The provision in Bakers scheme of allowing a house of worship to ban guns by posting signs actually creates even more problems. Controlling the welcome message that congregations would have to post in prominent locations invites constitutional challenges. In fact, then-St. Louis Catholic Archbishop Robert J. Carlson threatened to sue if a similar bill passed in 2018.

Pastors, rabbis, and religious leaders should not be compelled by the government to place signage in our sacred places prohibiting activity we may not want to allow on our own private property, he said at a press conference with Jewish, Baptist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, and other religious leaders.

Despite the overwhelming opposition from faith communities across the state, this bad bill keeps popping back up. Among the 40 people who submitted official testimony against Bakers bill for Mondays hearing were Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, and Presbyterian ministers; a Jewish rabbi; a representative from the Missouri Catholic Conference; and several others who identified themselves as a member of a religious congregation. And Ive heard from pastors across the state who find this bill an offensive assault on their rights.

But Baker couldnt name a single denominational group in the state supporting his measure. His faith in guns should not veto the clear public witness of numerous faith leaders. Bakers remedy is clearly worse than the disease that isnt even an ailment.

We have enough real problems for lawmakers to tackle this session without them trying to push guns into houses of worship. So, I pray they will defeat this dangerous bill.

Rev. Brian Kaylor is editor of Word&Way and associate director of Churchnet (a statewide Baptist network of churches).

See the original post here:
Opinion: Guns shouldn't trump the First Amendment - The Missouri Times

By Noah Feldman / Bloomberg Opinion

The extended trial brief filed by Donald Trumps lawyers advances three defenses: that Trump did not incite the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol; that the Senate cant try a president who is no longer in office; and that the First Amendment protects Trump from being impeached for words that, they say, dont meet the requirements for criminal incitement conviction laid down by the Supreme Court.

The factual defense is highly unconvincing, as anyone who watched Trumps speech on Jan. 6 and saw the attack can attest.

The argument that the Senate lacks jurisdiction over a president who is out of office is disproven by history and Senate precedent.

The free speech argument is also wrong in a basic sense: The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abridging freedom of speech. But this doesnt apply in impeachments any more than the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial would apply to the Senate impeachment trial.

Yet the First Amendment defense requires deeper engagement than the other two, if only because it is less absurd. If it did apply to impeachments, the Supreme Courts incitement jurisprudence contained in the famous 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio probably would have protected Trumps speech.

The major component of Trumps argument is that the First Amendment applies to elected officials. As the lawyers put it only a little ungrammatically, the fatal flaw of the Houses arguments is that it seeks to meet out governmental punishments impeachments based on political speech that falls squarely within broad protections of the First Amendment.

To support their argument, Trumps lawyers cite Wood v. Georgia and Bond v. Floyd. Both are important Supreme Court cases, but neither proves that the First Amendment should apply to impeachment.

The 1962 Wood case arose when a local Georgia judge impaneled a grand jury and charged it to investigate supposedly suspicious block voting by African-American citizens. (Think of it as a precursor to todays false allegations of election scams, but in the context of the civil rights movement.)

While the grand jury was sitting, the local sheriff denounced the whole charade, telling the press that Whatever the Judges intention, the action will be considered one of the most deplorable examples of race agitation to come out of Middle Georgia in recent years . This action appears either as a crude attempt at judicial intimidation of negro voters and leaders or, at best, as agitation for a negro vote issue in local politics. The judge responded by holding the sheriff in contempt of court.

In an opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren (not Justice William Brennan, as Trumps lawyers say), the court held that the contempt order violated the sheriffs free speech rights. The statement hadnt interfered with the sheriffs performance of his duties, the court explained, and added, The role that elected officials play in our society makes it all the more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance.

This decision was about a judicial act the contempt order that would have imprisoned the sheriff. It had nothing to do with impeachment. It certainly shows that public officials possess First Amendment rights. Trump does, too. But that means only that he cant be criminally prosecuted for protected speech, not that he cant be impeached for inciting the Capitol attack.

The Bond case, in 1966, involved an attempt by the Georgia legislature to refuse to seat the civil rights activist Julian Bond when he was elected to that body. The legislature claimed that, because Bond opposed the Vietnam War and the draft, he could not have sincerely taken his oath to support the Constitution and laws of the United States. In another opinion by Chief Justice Warren (also misidentified by Trumps lawyers as Justice Brennan), the court explained that free speech applies not only to the citizen-critic but also to an elected legislator.

The ruling that the Georgia legislature could not keep Bond from taking office does not suggest that the First Amendment prohibits impeachment for Trumps incitement. The Georgia legislature wasnt impeaching Bond. It was making up a reason to exclude him from serving in the first place; conduct outside the bounds of its authority.

Apart from the moral outrageousness of comparing Donald Trump to Julian Bond, the citation seems meant to create a supposedly liberal argument for applying the First Amendment to Trump. (Maybe thats also why Trumps lawyers wanted to invoke Justice Brennan, even though he didnt write either of the opinions.)

That effort is unavailing, or should be. A robust commitment to free speech doesnt require protecting from impeachment a president who uses words in an attempt to destroy the democratic process.

Had Trumps lawyers been more forthright, they might have argued that, although the letter of the Constitution allows Trump to be impeached, the Senate should apply the spirit of the First Amendment to the case, and therefore take into account the Brandenburg definition of incitement. That argument would at least have been constitutionally respectable.

Even then, the House managers would have a good answer: that Trump violated the spirit of the Brandenburg rule by encouraging the attack on the Capitol. The former president probably couldnt be punished criminally for what he said on Jan. 6. But for the high crime of trying to break democracy, he can and should be barred from running for office again.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and host of the podcast Deep Background. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. His books include The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President.

See original here:
Comment: Trump's lawyers have it wrong on First Amendment, too | HeraldNet.com - The Daily Herald

Prosecutors have charged more than 200 peoplewith federal crimesin connection with the Jan. 6 riot and insurrection at the Capitol, according to a CNN analysis of court records and Justice Department announcements.

The milestone comes mere hours before the start of former President Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate, in which he is accused of inciting the riot and insurrection on Jan. 6.Trump's attorneys are arguing he didn't incite the riot that grew from his supporters' march to the US Capitol, and his words to the crowd that day, to "fight like hell," aren't meant to be taken literally.

Yet at least two of the alleged rioters who have been detained argued this week in court that Trump is the reason for the violence with one even calling the former President a so-called "unindicted co-conspirator," according to a legal brief.

In that court filing Monday, defense attorney Lindy Urso argued that Patrick McCaughey III, who allegedly pushed to crush a police officer in a Capitol doorway, hadn't planned the attack and instead was inspired by Trump's words that day.

And on Sunday, another defendant, Matthew Miller, argued there's no proof he entered the Capitol or assaulted anyone, and was merely "following the directions" of Trump to march toward Congress. His defense attorney called Trump "the country's chief law enforcement officer" in the court filing, which asks for Miller's release from detention.

Prosecutors say they believe Miller discharged a fire extinguisher toward police during the melee.

Visit link:
(2) This is what the First Amendment actually says - CNN

Heres what you need to know:Video

transcript

transcript

I want to step back from the horrors of the attack itself, and look at Jan. 6 from a totally different perspective, the perspective of the insurrectionists themselves their own statements before, during and after the attack make clear the attack was done for Donald Trump at his instructions, and to fulfill his wishes. During the rally, President Trump led the crowd in a Stop the steal chant. Heres what that chant sounded like from the crowds perspective. Trump: We will stop the steal. Crowd: Stop the steal. Stop the steal. Stop the steal! The president basked as the crowd chanted, Fight for Trump, and when he incited the crowd to show strength, people responded, Storm the Capitol, Invade the Capitol. As the crowd chanted at the rally, the crowd at the Capitol made clear who they were doing this for. Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! All of these people who have been arrested and charged, theyre being accountable, held accountable for their actions. Their leader, the man who incited them, must be held accountable as well. Jan. 6 was a culmination of the presidents actions, not an aberration from them. The insurrection was the most violent and dangerous episode, so far, in Donald Trumps continuing pattern and practice of inciting violence. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of him, would you seriously OK, just knock the hell I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. The president praised a Republican candidate who assaulted a journalist, as my kind of guy. He said there were, quote, very fine people on both sides when the neo-Nazis, the Klansmen and Proud Boys invaded the city, the great city of Charlottesville, and killed Heather Heyer. And he said that an attack on a Black protester at one of his rallies was very, very appropriate. Does that sound familiar? Listen to how President Trump responded when asked about his own conduct on January the 6th. So if you read my speech, and many people have done it, its been analyzed, and people thought that what I said was totally appropriate. My dear colleagues, is there any political leader in this room who believes that if he is ever allowed by the Senate to get back into the Oval Office, Donald Trump would stop inciting violence to get his way? Would you bet the lives of more police officers on that? Would you bet the safety of your family on that? Would you bet the future of your democracy on that? President Trumps lack of remorse and refusal to take accountability after the attack poses its own unique and continuing danger. It sends the message that it is acceptable to incite a violent insurrection, to overthrow the will of the people, and that a president of the United States can do that. And get away with it. His impeachment, conviction and disqualification is not just about the past. Its about the future. Its making sure that no future official, no future president does the same exact thing President Trump does. If you dont find this a high crime and misdemeanor today, you have set a new terrible standard for presidential misconduct in the United States of America. The only real question here is the factual one. Did we prove that Donald Trump, while president of the United States, incited a violent insurrection against the government? We believe that we have shown you overwhelming evidence in this case, that would convince anyone using their common sense that this was indeed incitement. We humbly, humbly ask you to convict President Trump for the crime for which he is overwhelmingly guilty of. Because if you dont, if we pretend this didnt happen, or worse. if we let it go unanswered, whos to say it wont happen again?

The House Democrats prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump rested their case on Thursday, branding him a clear and present danger to United States democracy who could sow new violence like the deadly assault on the Capitol last month if he was not barred from holding office again.

Calling on senators to render impartial justice and embrace the common sense of the countrys founders, the nine impeachment managers closed their case by laying out the grave damage the Jan. 6 riot had caused not just to lawmakers or police officers at the Capitol, but to the democratic system and Americas standing around the world. None of it, they argued, would have happened without Mr. Trump.

Senators, America, we need to exercise our common sense about what happened, said Representative Jamie Raskin of Mayland, the lead manager, reading from Thomas Paine. Lets not get caught up in a lot of outlandish lawyers theories here. Exercise your common sense about what just took place in our country.

Mr. Raskin said the evidence that Mr. Trump cultivated, incited and then showed no remorse for the attack warranted making him the first impeached president ever to be convicted and the first former president to be disqualified from holding future office.

If you dont find this a high crime and misdemeanor today, you have set a new terrible standard for presidential misconduct in the United States of America, he said.

A day after delivering the Senate a harrowing account of the deadly violence, replete with chilling, previously unseen security footage, the prosecutors returned for the trials third day with new video clips, court documents and interviews in which the rioters defended their actions by citing Mr. Trumps directives and desires.

We were invited here, one of them screamed, the clip echoing through the Senate chamber.

Their own statements before, during and after the attack made clear the attack was done for Donald Trump at his instructions and to fulfill his wishes, said Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado.

They also argued that Mr. Trump had encouraged and celebrated violence before Jan. 6 such as a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 and scuffles during his campaign rallies and shown no remorse for whipping up thousands of his loyal supporters by telling them to fight like hell that day. Afterward, they noted, Mr. Trump called his speech totally appropriate.

Im not afraid of Donald Trump running again in four years, said Representative Ted Lieu of California. Im afraid hes going to run again and lose, because he can do this again.

Their task to convict remains a daunting one as they aim to persuade Republican senators who have shown no appetite for breaking with Mr. Trump to do so.

By turn, the managers sought to appeal to Republicans sense of patriotism and decency. They read the words of Republicans who voted in the House to impeach Mr. Trump and from the former presidents own cabinet secretaries,who resigned in protest after the deadly riot. They played audio of traumatized aides who had contemplated leaving government after the attack. And they recounted the humiliating taunts of foreign adversaries who looked on in glee.

transcript

transcript

Jan. 6 was a culmination of the presidents actions, not an aberration from them. The insurrection was the most violent and dangerous episode, so far, in Donald Trumps continuing pattern and practice of inciting violence. The president praised a Republican candidate who assaulted a journalist, as my kind of guy. He said there were, quote, very fine people on both sides when the neo-Nazis, the Klansmen and Proud Boys invaded the city, the great city, of Charlottesville, and killed Heather Heyer. And he said that an attack on a Black protester at one of his rallies was very, very appropriate. When responding to extremist plots in Michigan, Trump showed he knew how to use the power of a mob to advance his political objectives. Beginning in March, Trump leveled attacks on Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for the coronavirus policies in her state. On Oct. 8, the precise consequences of the presidents incitement to violence were revealed to the whole world. Look at this, 13 men were arrested by the F.B.I. for plotting to storm the Michigan State Capitol building, launch a civil war, kidnap Governor Whitmer, transport her to Wisconsin and then try and execute her. And what did Donald Trump do do as president of the United States to defend one of our nations governors against a plotted kidnapping by violent insurrectionists? Did he publicly condemn violent domestic extremists who hoped and planned to launch a civil war in America? No, not at all. He further inflamed them by continuing to attack the governor who was the object of their hatred. My dear colleagues, is there any political leader in this room who believes that if he is ever allowed by the Senate to get back into the Oval Office, Donald Trump would stop inciting violence to get his way? Would you bet the lives of more police officers on that? Would you bet the safety of your family on that? Would you bet the future of your democracy on that? President Trump declared his conduct totally appropriate. So he gets back into office, and it happens again, well have no one to blame but ourselves.

But already on Wednesday, Republican senators who sat through a vivid retelling of an assault they had lived through appeared unmoved from their determination to acquit Mr. Trump.

Seventeen Republicans would have to join every Democrat to achieve the two-thirds majority needed for conviction.

Mr. Trumps lawyers are expected to present his defense beginning at noon on Friday. They intend to deny that he was responsible for the attack or meant to interfere with the electoral process underway at the Capitol, despite his repeated exhortations to supporters to fight like hell to stop the steal.

One of the lawyers, David I. Schoen, derided the Democrats presentation as a thinly sourced entertainment package and offensive during an appearance on Fox News during the trial on Thursday.

In no setting in this country where someones guilt or innocence is being adjudicated would this kind of approach be permitted, he said.

The trial is moving quickly, and senators could reach a verdict by the end of the holiday weekend. But first, they will have a chance to question the prosecution and the defense, and the managers may force a debate and vote on calling witnesses.

Aishvarya Kavi contributed reporting.

transcript

transcript

The crowd at Donald Trumps speech echoed and chanted his words. And when people in the crowd followed his direction and marched to the Capitol, they chanted the same words as they breached this building. Now, lets return to the speech for a moment. During the rally, President Trump led the crowd in a Stop the Steal chant. Heres what that chant sounded like from the crowds perspective. Heres a term all of you people really came up with we will stop the steal. [cheering] Stop the steal! Stop the steal! And when he incited the crowd to show strength, people responded, Storm the Capitol, Invade the Capitol. Here are both of those moments, but from the crowds perspective. Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! As President Trump said, show strength, a person posted to Parler saying, quote, Time to fight Civil War is upon us. Another user said, quote, We are going to have a Civil War. Get ready. An analysis found that members of Civil War quadrupled on Parler in the hour after Donald Trump said, show strength. Insurrectionists holding Confederate flags and brandishing weapons cheered the presidents very words. Stop the steal! Stop the steal! Stop the steal! Stop the steal! When the insurrectionists first got into the building and confronted police, the mob screamed at the officers that they were listening to President Trump.

The House Democrats leading the impeachment prosecution used the words of rioters supporting Donald J. Trump against the former president on Thursday, as they sought to show that the sacking of the Capitol was done by people who believed they were following Mr. Trumps wishes.

They truly believed that the whole intrusion was at the presidents orders and we know that because they said so, said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, and one of the House managers.

In one clip, she showed rioters chanting Stop the steal! Stop the steal! as they tried to enter the Capitol not long after Mr. Trump had led that chant at a rally. In another, she showed a rioter, identified as Baked Alaska, the nickname of the far-right personality Anthime J. Gionet, talking about calling up Mr. Trump while in the Capitol: Hell be happy. What do you mean? Were fighting for Trump! In a third, a rioter was heard shouting at police in the Capitol, We are listening to Trump your boss.

Ms. DeGettes presentation spliced together footage of the rioters themselves as well as subsequent claims from their lawyers about why they were at the Capitol. She quoted an attorney for Jacob Anthony Chansley, who stormed the Capitol wearing a fur headdress with horns and his face painted red, white and blue, saying that Mr. Chansley was there at the invitation of our president. Mr. Chansley, who is known as Q Shaman for his propagation of baseless QAnon conspiracy theories, also left a note in the Capitol for former Vice President Mike Pence that read, Only a matter of time. Justice is Coming!

The Democrats case and their repeated use of gripping and wrenching videos from the day of the riot, including some shot by the rioters themselves is aimed not just at the Republican jurors in the Senate, who seem increasingly unlikely to convict Mr. Trump, but a nationwide television audience.

This was not a hidden crime, Ms. DeGette said. The president told them to be there.

In one last video, Ms. DeGette showed a rioter shouting clearly about who had brought them to the Capitol building. We were invited here! he shouted. We were invited by the president of the United States!

The House prosecution team on Thursday sought to preemptively rebut a legal argument that former President Donald J. Trumps lawyers are expected to make in his defense: that his remarks to a crowd of supporters on Jan. 6 were protected under the First Amendment.

Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland and the lead impeachment manager, said the idea of a First Amendment defense to being impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors was absurd and a smoke screen.

The First Amendment does not create some superpower immunity from impeachment for a president who attacks the Constitution in word and deed while rejecting the outcome of an election he happened to lose, Mr. Raskin said.

In a brief on Monday, Mr. Trumps lawyers relied in part on the First Amendment to defend the former president. They asserted that his remarks on Jan. 6 fell well within the norms of political speech that is protected by the First Amendment, and to try him for that would be to do a grave injustice to the freedom of speech in this country.

Mr. Raskin tried to flip the argument on its head as he addressed senators on Thursday.

If anything, he said, President Trumps conduct was an assault on the First Amendment and equal protection rights that millions of Americans exercised when they voted last year, often under extraordinarily difficult and arduous circumstances.

For weeks, President Biden and his aides have tried to frame the second impeachment of his predecessor, Donald J. Trump, as a distraction from his efforts to fulfill the promises he made to the American people.

Im focused on my job, the president told reporters on Thursday, to deal with the promises I made. And we all know we have to move on.

That focus, he said, meant that on Wednesday he had not watched the gruesome retelling of the events on Jan. 6 that the Democratic House impeachment managers had shown in a series of stunning video clips because he had been going straight through last night, until a little after 9.

Mr. Biden did concede that my guess is some minds may be changed as a result of the trial. But his press secretary, Jen Psaki, said later that he was not intending to give a projection or prediction.

Despite the emotional and harrowing scenes that Democratic lawmakers hope will define Mr. Trumps legacy, even if he is not convicted, White House officials have refused to engage in anything even tangentially related to the trial and have insisted they spend no time thinking or talking about the former president who relentlessly attacked Mr. Biden.

It reminds people of why they so definitively wanted to turn the page on Donald Trumps daily fever pitch versus the calm, cool, controlled Joe Biden at 97.1 degrees, said Rahm Emanuel, a White House chief of staff under President Barack Obama and a former mayor of Chicago.

Mike DuHaime, a Republican strategist, put it another way. The longer Donald Trump stays central to the news, the better it is for Biden, he said. The constant reminder of Trumps worst actions makes Biden look great by comparison, simply by acting sane.

And exhibiting a level of top-down message discipline that was rarely on display during the Trump presidency, Ms. Psaki has worked to reinforce the message that the presidents thoughts are not on the behavior of his predecessor and its consequences. His view is that his role is should be currently focused on addressing the needs of the American people, putting people back to work, addressing the pandemic.

But the trial has also provided Mr. Biden with some cover as he faced hurdles on some of his defining policy promises.

On Tuesday, as Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the lead impeachment manager, made an emotional appeal to senators, the White House backtracked on its stated goal of reopening a majority of our schools in the first 100 days of Mr. Bidens presidency.

Mr. Trumps trial dominated headlines instead of Ms. Psakis scaling back the presidents ambitions, saying the goal was for more than 50 percent of schools to have some teaching in person at least one day a week in the first 100 days.

In an email, Ms. Psaki disputed the fact that her comments signified a retraction of previous promises. We gave our first definition of the specifics of a goal that had not yet been clearly defined for the public, she said.

transcript

transcript

We also see the extraordinary valor of the Capitol Police, who risked and gave their lives to save our Capitol, our democracy, our lives. They are martyrs for our democracy, martyrs for our democracy, those who lost their lives. That is why I am putting forth a resolution, introducing legislation to pay tribute to the Capitol Police and other law enforcement personnel who protected the Capitol, by giving them a Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor that Congress can bestow. The service of the Capitol Police force that day brings honor to our democracy. Their accepting this award brings luster to this medal. We must always remember their sacrifice and stay vigilant against what Ive said before, about what Abraham Lincoln said: The silent artillery of time. We will never forget.

Among the harrowing images presented during the impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump, one video stood out: a Capitol Police officer sprinting toward a senator to warn of the angry mob nearby.

The senator, Mitt Romney of Utah, is shown turning on his heels and fleeing to safety.

I dont think my family or my wife understood that I was as close as I might have been to real danger, Mr. Romney told reporters on Thursday, one day after the video showed Officer Eugene Goodman aiding him. They were surprised and very, very appreciative of Officer Goodman, in his being there and directing me back to safety.

For Officer Goodman, it was the second time a video went viral displaying actions widely credited with saving members of Congress. The first, which showed him single-handedly luring the mob away from the entrance to the Senate toward an area with reinforcements, turned him into a hero. The second has added to his lore.

Both have catapulted Officer Goodman a former Army infantryman who served in one of the most dangerous parts of Iraq during a lethal time in the war to fame he never sought.

On Wednesday, after Mr. Romney watched the videos that showed Officer Goodman directing him to safety, he could be seen talking with the officer. Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, later walked over and fist bumped the officer.

On Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi singled out Officer Goodman for his courage when she introduced legislation to award the Capitol Police and other law enforcement personnel who responded on Jan. 6 with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor of Congress. On Jan. 20, Officer Goodman was given the task of escorting Vice President Kamala Harris at the inauguration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Veterans who served alongside Officer Goodman in the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq some 15 years ago say that the officer, known then as Goody, never craved accolades.

I saw him come out in front of the vice president, and he immediately ducked to the right, said Mark Belda, who served with Officer Goodman in Iraq. I thought, thats definitely Goody.

As a day of violence and mayhem at the Capitol slid into evening last month, with bloodshed, glass shattered and democracy besieged, President Donald J. Trump posted a message on Twitter that seemed to celebrate the moment. Remember this day forever! he urged.

The House Democrats prosecuting him at his Senate impeachment trial barely a month later hope to make sure everyone does.

With conviction in a polarized Senate seemingly out of reach, the House managers, as the prosecutors are known, are aiming their arguments at the American people and historians who will one day render judgment on him.

Through the expansive use of unsettling video footage showing both Mr. Trumps words and the brutal rampage that followed, the managers are using their moment to ensure Mr. Trump is held accountable by those two groups, even if he is acquitted by the Senate.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, the first paragraph of historical accounts of the Trump presidency is likely to be the legacy of the riot that ended it, said Ken Gormley, who has written books on impeachment, presidents and the Constitution.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, one of Mr. Trumps more outspoken Republican critics, touched on that on Wednesday after the House managers played a searing sequence of never-before-seen images of the mob he inspired ransacking the Capitol.

Given what the country has now seen, prospects for a Trump comeback campaign in 2024 were thin, she said.

I dont see how Donald Trump could be re-elected to the presidency again, Ms. Murkowski told reporters. I just dont see that.

The question is how much power to dominate the G.O.P. will have been drained away by the time this is over, said Karl Rove, the Republican strategist and former adviser to President George W. Bush.

Mr. Trumps camp acknowledges that the prosecution has been effective, but portrays it as an illegitimate smear borne of partisan animus. Jason Miller, a longtime adviser and campaign spokesman for Mr. Trump, told Fox Business, the president is going to be involved in making sure we win back the House and Senate in 2022.

Mr. Trumps legal team, which will begin its own arguments after the House managers conclude theirs, dismissed the use of the video in the Senate trial as an inflammatory tactic to blame the former president for the actions of others.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who testified against impeachment the first time the House lodged charges of high crimes and misdemeanors against Mr. Trump in 2019, said the managers this time were just playing to the crowd rather than making a legal argument.

Much of the argument seems designed to enrage rather than convict, he said.

In that regard, it was having an impact outside the chamber. Twitter reinforced on Wednesday that it will never allow its most famous former user back onto its platform after cutting him off from his 89 million followers for inciting violence. And The Wall Street Journals influential conservative editorial page said that Mr. Trump is permanently scarred regardless of whether he is convicted.

History will remember, Mr. Trump declared in another tweet about 10 days before the riot. That it will, and the trial this week will go a long way toward deciding what those memories will be.

It has been just over a year since former President Donald J. Trump first faced impeachment charges in the Senate, but so much has happened since then.

We asked more than two dozen voters most of whom initially responded to a Survey Monkey poll and whom The New York Times reached out to during the first impeachment trial to describe the impeachment in a single word.

Here are excerpts from what they said.

Consequential

Oscar Gomez, 51, a business consultant in San Francisco who describes himself as left of center.

Youre accountable for your actions and words up until your last day of employment. In my assessment, there is direct connection between his words that day and the violence that followed.

Necessary

Jerry Iannacci, 53, an art teacher living in a Philadelphia suburb who says he is independent.

Theres no way to not go through with it. Is it going to divide the country? I dont know that the gap can be any wider than it is now. If one side decided that armed insurrection was the way to go, whats worse? They commandeer tanks next time? They find a few ex-Air Force pilots who can fly a plane and they buy a surplus F-16?

Unnecessary

Cherece Mendieta, 47, is a conservative in Houston.

Theyre impeaching a man for fighting for what he believes in. Did he tell them, Go storm the Capitol; go threaten their lives? No, he didnt. Its ridiculous.

Fiasco

Bill Marcy is a former law enforcement officer who traveled to Washington on Jan. 6 to hear Mr. Trump speak, but he said he was not part of the crowd that went to the Capitol.

Theres no responsibility Donald Trump has for what happened.

Justified

Jimmy Welch, 54, is a Republican and former Trump supporter from Louisville, Ky.

At my job, I couldnt come in and spread a bunch of lies and get people riled up and have a strike without repercussions.

Unjustifiable

Originally posted here:
Impeachment Trial Day 3 Highlights: Prosecutors Rest Their Case, Warning Trump Can Do This Again if He Is Not Convicted - The New York Times

By TONY MAUROSpecial correspondent for the Freedom Forum

Former President Donald Trumps fiery Jan. 6 speech, made just before the U.S. Capitol riot began, led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives on a charge of incitement of insurrection.

But as the Senate prepares for Trumps trial to resume Feb. 9, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and other scholars have pointed to a 1969 Supreme Court decision that, in their view, gives First Amendment protection to speakers who urge listeners to use force in certain circumstances. The decision strictly defines the legal concept of incitement. It iscertain to be invoked as a reason Trump could avoid conviction, assuming the trial touches on the riot, rather than other issues.

The case, titled Brandenburg v. Ohio, struck down a law that was used to prosecute Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader. Speaking at a rally in rural Ohio in 1964, Brandenburg said revengeance [sic] was needed against government institutions for suppressing the Caucasian race. Interestingly, he said that the revengeance would be wrought by marching on Congress July the Fourth, four hundred thousand strong.

The high court ruled that state laws making it a crime merely to advocate the use of violence violate the First Amendment. Only when the advocacy is aimed at inciting imminent lawless action, and is likely to succeed, may government prohibit it, the court stated unanimously.

Scholars who disagree that the Brandenburg ruling protects Trump argue he unequivocally incited imminent lawless action through comments he made shortly before the rally including, Youll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong, and If you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore. Harvard Law Schools Einer Elhauge asserted in a Washington Post column, Trumps conduct clearly meets the legal standard that Brandenburg set.

As the sides invoke the ruling to support their positions in the coming days, here is a primer on Brandenburg v. Ohio.

DATE: Decided June 9, 1969

IMPACT: The Brandenburg decision is seen as one of the most expansive interpretations of the First Amendment ever announced by the Supreme Court. The late New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote that Brandenburg gave the greatest protection to what could be called subversive speech that it has ever had in the United States, and almost certainly greater than such speech has in any other country.

BACKGROUND: Following the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 by an anarchist and the start of the communist movement in 1917, states began passing anti-sedition laws and so-called criminal syndicalism statutes. These laws, passed in 33 states, prohibited teaching or advocating the use of violence or crime to bring about political or economic change. The motivation behind the syndicalism laws in most cases was to discourage the spread of socialist or communist anti-capitalist views.

The Brandenburg case concerned not a communist, but a Klan leader. With the cameras of a local TV crew rolling, the red-hooded Clarence Brandenburg spoke to a Klan rally held at a farm in Hamilton County, Ohio, and made a threat laced with racist slurs: Were not a revengent organization, but if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, its possible that there might have to be some revengeance. His pledge to march on Congress July the Fourth could not fit the definition of imminent lawless action.

Based on his speech, Brandenburg was convicted for violating the states criminal syndicalism law, fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to 10 years in prison. He appealed, challenging the law as a violation of his free speech rights. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal, setting the stage for U.S. Supreme Court review.

VOTE: Brandenburg won. The eight sitting justices at the time were Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White and Thurgood Marshall. The ruling was issued unsigned, rather than under the name of a specific justice. There were no dissents.

Tony Mauro is contributing U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for the National Law Journal and ALM Media and a special correspondent for the Freedom Forum. This article includes excerpts from Mauros 2006 book, Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court, Second Edition.

Follow this link:
FIRST FIVE: A First Amendment case that may be key to Trump trial - hays Post