Mediaboss Marketing

The execution of the search warrant at former President Donald Trumps home in Florida caused consternation for some who think the warrant was politically driven. Serving a search warrant on Trump has political implications, but that does not mean it was done without a proper constitutional basis.

As an initial matter, the individuals seeking the search warrant made a determination that Trumps home contained evidence of a crime or items that were illegally possessed. In other words, officials with the FBI, in conjunction with attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice, concluded that such evidence probably was inside the home. Given that this search warrant was unprecedented, it is hard to imagine those officials and attorneys made the decision lightly.

Even if one believes those officials and attorneys engaged in rampant political misconduct, an external check exists. For federal law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant, they had to get authorization from a neutral U.S. magistrate judge. The FBI agent had to present an affidavit, swearing under oath and penalty of perjury to all the details in the affidavit that supported the assertion there probably is evidence of crime. There cannot be any vague assertion that some crime happened. Instead, the affidavit must have information that describes the expected evidence in support of the allegations related to the specific crime.

In order for the magistrate judge to sign the search warrant, that person had to find that probable cause existed based on the totality of the circumstances. Federal magistrate judges are not political nominees; they are highly trained legal experts who are selected to work for a federal court based on merit.

As a former U.S. magistrate judge, I signed countless search warrants, but never one as high profile as this one. Each time I reviewed an application for a search warrant, I read and analyzed all the documents carefully, ensuring there was full compliance with the Fourth Amendment before I signed the warrant. I can only imagine if I were reviewing a warrant application for a former president that my high level of diligence would have somehow been even higher. I would expect whoever signed this search warrant exercised a similar exacting level of legal analysis.

If somehow the oversight and review by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the magistrate judges analysis all failed, Trump still had options. He could have gone to federal court seeking to quash the search warrant with arguments that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Another federal judge would have reviewed the search warrant to ensure it complied with Fourth Amendment requirements. Trump, with his legal resources, did not choose to have a federal judge immediately review the warrants constitutionality, which likely indicates nothing readily appeared to be unconstitutional.

As search warrants are a law enforcement tool in criminal investigations, the Fourth Amendment authorizes their issuance provided they meet a number of parameters, including particularity and reasonableness. The execution of the warrant may not lead to any charges against any individual, including Trump, as there is no certainty that the FBI agents will find evidence of a crime. Probable cause based on a totality of the circumstances is the standard, as opposed to certainty.

However, if Trump is charged with a crime based on any evidence obtained from the search of his home, he will have another chance to challenge the search warrant. He can file a motion to suppress with the federal judge overseeing the charges against him that could challenge the allegations and information in the agents sworn affidavit, any shortcomings in the magistrate judges review of the warrant application, or any problems with the execution of the warrant at his home. Finally, Trump can appeal any unsuccessful motion to suppress to the federal appellate court, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many of Trumps supporters decried the execution of the search warrant. None of these supporters, however, pointed to any concrete Fourth Amendment violations in the warrant. Trump chose to forgo filing a motion to quash. A number of constitutional safeguards exists. Ultimately, the search warrant, while shocking given its target, appears to comply with the Fourth Amendment based on what we currently know.

Brian L. Owsley is an associate professor of law at UNT Dallas College of Law, where he teaches, among other topics, federal criminal procedure, which concerns the Fourth Amendment. He served as federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas from 2005 until 2013.

See more here:
Commentary: 'I signed countless warrants. Search of Trump's house is shocking and constitutional.' - San Antonio Express-News

Three Arkansas police officers have been suspended pending an investigation by state police after a video taken by a bystander showed them brutally beating a shoeless man outside of a convenience store.

The video, first posted Sunday afternoon on Twitter, shows two Crawford County sheriff's deputies and an officer with the Mulberry Police Department holding down and battering a man later identified by state police as Randal Worcester, 27, of Goose Creek, South Carolina. The officers knee, punch, and slam Worcester's head into the ground.

Arkansas news outlet KSFM-TV reports that, according to Crawford County Sheriff Jimmy Damante, officers were dispatched on Sunday after receiving a call about a man threatening and allegedly spitting on a convenience store employee:

Sheriff Damante says Worcester then traveled on a bike to Mulberry, near Exit 20, where the Mulberry officer and the deputies met with him. The conversation began calm and Worcester handed them a pocket knife, but the sheriff says Worcester then began attacking one of the deputies by pushing him to the ground and punching the back of his head, leading to what was seen in the video.

Worcester has been charged with second-degree battery, resisting arrest, refusal to submit, possessing an instrument of crime, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, terroristic threatening, and second-degree assault.

There is no bright-line test for when legal use of force by police crosses over into excessive force. Rather, excessive force claims are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, which judges incidents based on individual factors and from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene. However, slamming a person's head into the pavement is not a standard technique to gain compliance.

"Certainly the blows to the head at the same time you're trying to get a person to put their hands behind their backthink about it," former Philadelphia police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told CNN. "It doesn't make sense. If you're getting hit in the face, you're going to lift your hands to try to protect your face."

"In reference to the video circulating on social media involving two Crawford County Deputies, we have requested that Arkansas State Police conduct the investigation and the Deputies have been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation," Damante said in a Facebook statement. "I hold all my employees accountable for their actions and will take appropriate measures in this matter."

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson has confirmed that the Arkansas State Police are investigating the incident, and in a statement to The New York Times, the agency said its investigation "will be limited to the use of physical force by the deputies and the police officer."

The incident is just the latest video of apparently excessive force to go viral and lead to police being investigated. In April, bodycam footage of Tulsa police violently arresting an elderly woman with bipolar disorder drew widespread outrage. Last month, a video went viral of a 2016 incident where a Colorado police officer chased and tased a man for holding a "fuck bad cops" sign.

See the article here:
Arkansas Cops Suspended After Video of Beating Goes Viral - Reason

On August 1, 2022, RPM International Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries amended the Company's revolving credit facility by entering into a Fourth Amendment to Credit Agreement with the lenders named therein and PNC Bank, National Association, as administrative agent for the Revolving Credit Facility Lenders, which amends the Credit Agreement dated as of October 31, 2018. The Credit Agreement Amendment increases the size of the revolving credit facility from $1.3 billion to $1.35 billion and extends the term of the revolving credit facility for five years, until August 1, 2027. Pursuant to the Credit Agreement Amendment, U.S. Dollar revolving loans will bear interest at either the base rate or an adjusted term SOFR rate, at the Company's option, plus a spread determined by the Company's debt rating.

Foreign currency loans will bear interest at either an adjusted daily simple SOFR rate or an adjusted term SOFR-based RFR rate or Eurocurrency rate plus, in each case, a similar spread. At the closing of the Credit Agreement Amendment, the applicable spread for (a) base rate and adjusted daily simple SOFR loans was 0.10% per annum, with possible future spreads ranging from 0.0% to 0.450% per annum, and (b) adjusted term SOFR, adjusted term SOFR-based RFR and Eurocurrency rate loans was 1.10% per annum, with possible future spreads ranging from 0.90% to 1.450% per annum. The Credit Agreement Amendment also replaces the commitment fee payable under the Credit Agreement with a facility fee based on the aggregate outstanding commitments at an initial rate of 0.15% per annum, which, like the interest rate spreads, is subject to adjustment thereafter based on the Company's debt rating, with possible future rates ranging from 0.10% to 0.30% per annum.

Amendment to Term Loan Agreement: On August 1, 2022, the Company and one of its subsidiaries entered into a Fourth Amendment to Credit Agreement with the lenders named therein and PNC Bank, National Association, as administrative agent for the Term Loan Lenders, which amends the Credit Agreement dated as of February 21, 2020. In connection with the Term Loan Agreement Amendment, and on the date thereof, the Company prepaid $50 million in principal amount of the outstanding term loans, resulting in a reduction in term loan commitments and outstandings to $250 million in the aggregate. The maturity date was extended to August 1, 2025.

Term loan borrowings will bear interest at either the base rate or an adjusted term SOFR rate, at the Company's option, plus a spread determined by the Company's debt rating. At the closing of the Term Loan Agreement Amendment, the applicable spread for (a) base rate loans was 0.0% per annum, with possible future spreads ranging from 0.0% to 0.50% per annum, and (b) adjusted term SOFR was 1.00% per annum, with possible future spreads ranging from 0.75% to 1.50% per annum.

Original post:
RPM International Inc. Amends its Revolving Credit Facility by Entering into Fourth Amendment to Credit Agreement - Marketscreener.com

Welcome back to The Flyover, your daily midday digest of what local media outlets and Twitter-ers are gabbing about.

Sign up, get MN's top headlines in your inbox every day. Easy!

When those on the right arent getting their way, they sure love to compare what theyre going through to Nazi Germany. Last April, GOP governor candidate Scott Jensen decided to invoke Hitler while speaking at a MaskOffMN meeting, making the dumb argument that mask mandates are a slippery slope toward another Holocaust. TC Jewfolk dug up and shared the Jensen clip this morning: If you look at the 1930s and you look at it carefully, we could see some things happening. Little things that people chose to push aside. Then there was a night called Kristallnacht. (Kristallnacht was a multi-day coordinated wave of violence in which the Nazi party tore through Jewish homes, religious sites, and businesses.) Then there was the book burning, and it kept growing and growing, and a guy named Hitler kept growing in power, and World War II came about, Jensen continued.

Basically, Jensen is making the argument that mask mandates during a pandemic are akin the things that lead to actual atrocities against humanity. Gotcha. Jensen, who is also a practicing physician, has been known to say dumb shit in the past, including dismissing Covid as a mild four-day respiratory illness, saying he plans to gut the medical board if elected (because he is frequently under investigation), and claiming that most of the folks whove died of Covid only had a couple years left in them anyway.

Jensen is scheduled to appear at a Republican Jewish Coalition event tomorrow. We sure hope they school him on that guy named Hitler.

Diversion programs are an effective alternative to criminally prosecuting juveniles in Minnesota, the Star Tribune reports in the second installment of its focus on juvenile justice. A childs future can hinge on the path that is chosen, according to the Strib. Those who complete diversion are more likely to stay in school and less likely to commit more crimes than young people who are criminally charged. The big drawback: These programs arent being implemented in every municipality. Though state law requires that such programs exist, it sets few standards or guidelines, so instead, many places continue to use the wasteful, ineffective probation systems, based on the ideological belief that the more punitive an option, the better. Anyway, this is bad news for the where are the parents?/lock em all up crowd: Not only dont you have the solution, but in fact, youre the problem.

A small but possibly important win for unhoused Minnesotans: A state district judge has ruled that cops cant trash all your shit just because its outside in an encampment instead of inside a house. In an ongoing case brought by the ACLU of Minnesota, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, and Ballard Spahr on behalf of nine encamped homeless people against the MPRB, Hennepin County, and the city of Minneapolis, Judge Wilhelmina Wright ruled against the plaintiffs on some big issues. Unhoused people dont have the right to stay in encampments, and the government has the right to remove them, she said. But police trashing an encamped persons stuff is a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. That means the class action suit goes forward, and grants at least some protections to the property rights of the homeless generally.

The longstanding debate over whether to claim Bon Iver is tricky. Eau Claire, after all, is 66 miles from Minnesota. Menomonie sits just 44 miles across the Minnesota-Wisconsin border, and its home to Emmitt Bailey, the eight-year-old tot who won the kid division of the USA Mullet Championships on Sunday.

Take a look, courtesy of the USA Mullet Championships:

As a matter of state pride, were hereby certifying young Emmittwhose sick golden flow beat out 687 contestantsas a Minnesotan, thus locally angling this national story. Emmitt collected almost 10,000 votes en route to his victory, which comes with a $2,500 cash prize. Our rival state to the East may collect taxes on that haul, but nothing will diminish the fact that, per Racket, Emmitt is unquestionably a Minnesotan. Media hoopla surrounding his local mullet has gone beyond our wildest dreams, Emmitts local father, Eric, said last week. (A more widely agreed upon Minnesotan, Callen Steinbrink of Austin, qualified for the final round.) Cayden Kershaw of Wausau, Wisconsin, won the teen division. Considering his hometown is 159 miles away, he simply doesnt meet our editorial definition of local. Sorry, Cayden.

The rest is here:
Man Who Thinks COVID Regs = Nazism Could Be Your Governor - Racket - Racket

Happy Monday, OnPolitics readers!

Primary races in Florida and New York are happening tomorrow. Here's what you need to know.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis is one ofthe top Republican names among potential presidential contenders in 2024. But first he must win reelection, and Democrats would love to thwart those White House ambitions, even as the Sunshine State has drifted toward the GOP in recent years.

Floridians will also set the table for their Senate race, where Orlando-areaRep. Val Demings is expected to prevail as the Democratic nominee to challenge Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.

New test of voter laws: Floridians will cast their primary ballots under new voting restrictions a judge once said were designed to target Black voters, the first such federal election under the new law.

Voting rights advocates say the new rules make it harder to request and turn in absentee ballots and register voters as well as making it easier to challenge votes once cast. But supporters say the new rules are needed to combat voter fraud, which has not been proven to be an issue in the state.

The other races to watch on Tuesday take place in New York, where Democrats have a few intraparty clashes, with incumbents battling each other because of the state legislatures redistricting process.

It's Amy with today's top stories out of Washington.

There were whispers in the spring that the future of Roe v. Wade was in jeopardy. Weeks later, a draft of the forthcoming Dobbs decision was leaked. By June, the Supreme Court had overturned the ruling that had established a constitutional right to abortion since 1973.

Donations began to pour into the coffers of abortion rights organizations. And for some anti-abortion nonprofits too.

We were raising more than we had the previous year," said Nikki Madsen, executive director of Abortion Care Network, a national association for abortion clinics based in Washington D.C. But a significant portion has come in since the leak.

The Abortion Care Network is just one organization that is part of a larger trend of increasing donations following the Supreme Courts ruling.

While both sidessaw an uptick in donations, abortion rights groupssaw the bulk of donations, according to an analysis by Open Secrets and USA TODAY. The findings showed that overall contributions to top abortion rights organizations more than tripled. But contributions under $200 increased for both abortion rights and anti-abortion groups.

Which groups gained the most? In total, the top abortion rights organizations, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, saw an increase in overall contributions jumpfrom $630,000 to roughly $2.3million in a three-month period ending in June.

Anti-abortion groupsalso saw a small bump in donations. In a combined total, overall contributions increased from around $34,000 in April to around $86,000 in June.

Donald Trump has blasted the Aug. 8 search of his Florida estate by questioning the justification for the unprecedented action at a former presidents home, criticizing how the FBI carried it out and questioning what was taken from Mar-a-Lago.

The latest:Trump's lawyers are seeking to halt the continued review of classified documents seized from the former president's Mar-a-Lago estate earlier this monthuntil a special master can be appointed to ensure that unrelated or privileged material is shielded from scrutiny, according to court documents filed Monday.

Since the search at Mar-a-Lago, Trump has made a number of statements through social media posts on his website Truth Social and through public statements that often lack context and facts that rebut his own allegations.

What was said: Trump said there's 'no way' to justify search, but search warrant cites Espionage Act and other crimes

Context: U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart signed off on the FBI search warrant by finding probable cause the FBI would find evidence that three potential crimes were committed: improper handling of defense documents, obstruction of justice and possible violations of the Espionage Act.

Judges review warrants as a check on investigators who are required to present evidence they've already gathered to demonstrate what more evidence they hope to collect in a search. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects people from unreasonable searches, requires a description of the place to be searched and the items expected to be seized.

What was said: Trump said protected documents were taken, but courts have rejected his privilege claims

Context: The Justice Department hasnt revealed what documents were seized in the search, other than to say the materials included 11 sets of secret and top secret records. A subsequent court filing called some of the records highly classified.

Federal judges have rejected previous claims of attorney-client and executive privilege in investigations of Trump because the documents with attorneys didn't deal with actual trial preparation and because the investigations outweighed his claim to keep communications with aides confidential.

President Joe Biden waived Trumps claims of executive privilege for the House committee investigating the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, when it sought documents from the National Archives and Records Administration. When Trump tried to block the release in federal court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Bidens waiver outweighed Trumps claim. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, ruling the investigation was more important than the claim of executive privilege.

Read more claims from Trump that are lacking or missing some context here.

Dr. Anthony Fauci announced today that he intends to retire from government service in December "to pursue the next chapter" of his career. Find out more about his next steps here. -- Amy

Read the original here:
OnPolitics: After Roe v. Wade was overturned, donations to abortion groups surged - USA TODAY