Mediaboss Marketing

Summary

1/6 select committee subpoenas far-right activist Ali Alexander; 1/6 select committee issues new subpoenas; Senate judiciary committee releases report on Trump and allies pressuring DOJ to overturn election; GOP Representative Biggs falsely claims we don`t know who won the 2020 election in Arizona; Trump and allies stonewalling 1/6 select committee; Trump urges allies to defy 1/6 select committee subpoenas.

JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: How are you doing, Ari. No wine tips, what? Fix that man, get some wine tips going.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: None, zero.

REID: Get them going. All right, thank you very much. Have a good evening.

Good evening, everyone. We are following several major stories tonight, including late night ruling halting Texas`s darn near abortion ban and bounty hunter law. And within the hour, if all goes as planned, the Senate will vote to temporarily raise the debt limit avoiding total economic catastrophe.

But we begin THE REIDOUT tonight with new developments from the House select committee investigating the January 6th insurrection. Late today, the committee issued subpoenas to two individuals and one organization involved in planning one of the rallies that precipitated the Capitol attack.

Among the targets is Ali Alexander, the key organizer of the so-called Stop the Steal effort who reportedly went into hiding after January 6th. Alexander alluded to the possibility of violence in the weeks leading up to insurrection. And on the night before, he even led the crowd in a chant of victory or death. The most significant is that Alexander is the one, as you may recall, who implicated three sitting members of Congress in planning the events of that day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALI ALEXANDER, FAR-RIGHT ACTIVIST: I was the person who came up with the January 6th idea with Congressman Gosar, Congressman Mo Brooks and then Congressman Andy Biggs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Meanwhile we`re learning more and more about the insurrection -- more and more that the insurrection was really just the endgame of a long planned attempt to overthrow the duly elected president before he could be sworn in. A 400-page interim report from the Senate Judiciary Committee makes it clear step by step how Donald Trump planned to pressure and coerce the Justice Department into joining his effort to overturn the election. It reveals that were it not for a handful of DOJ officials, Trump`s power grab could have ended democracy as we know it.

Among other things, the report details a three-hour meeting on January 3rd, in which Trump threatened to replace acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. According to Rosen, Trump opened that meeting by telling him that one thing we know is you aren`t going to do anything to overturn the election.

In Rosen`s place, Trump wanted to install Jeffrey Clark, a lackey who would back his baseless claims of voter fraud. And if Clark`s name sounds familiar it`s because he is the guy who pushed the DOJ to send letters to officials in Georgia and other states asking them to void their election results.

In other words, Trump wanted the top law enforcement agency in the country to lend its credibility to the big lie, a move that would have sparked a constitutional crisis or worse. That crisis was only averted because all of the other DOJ officials in the room made it clear that all of the assistant attorneys general would resign if Trump replaced Rosen with Clark.

Even Trump`s White House Council Pat Cipollone, threatened to resign, calling Trump`s plan to issue Clark`s letter a murder/suicide pact because of the chaos that it would unleash.

All of this played out behind closed doors just three days from January 6th, and it represents just a fraction of what the committee uncovered. It`s further proof not only of Trump`s personal disgrace and desperation to claim the power but also his complete contempt for the democratic principles this country tells the world that it stands for.

And that is not hyperbole. Trump compromised the independence of the DOJ, he defied the constitutional limits on executive power and subverted the electoral process. And don`t take my word for it. Trump`s own lawyer, John Eastman, put it in writing providing a literal blueprint for how to pull off a coup in America.

All of these abuses beg the question, who is going to hold Donald Trump accountable? Because as we speak, Trump is stonewalling legitimate inquiries into his conduct while perhaps planning to try it again. He`s instructing his allies and former officials to defy the lawful subpoenas from the select committee. In fact, today, today marked the deadline for four of those subpoenaed aides to turn over documents ahead of their scheduled hearing next week.

Joining me now, former Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Glenn Kirschner, former Federal Prosecutor, and Kurt Bardella, Adviser for the DCCC. Thank you all for being here.

Glenn, I`m going right to the center of my screen here, I`m talking to you, because the stakes in those subpoenas next week seem to me to be pretty big ,because if those officials, those Trump officials don`t show up the way that they did during impeachment, if they just ignored those subpoenas, what needs to happen in order for us to essentially still have a rule of law in this country?

GLENN KIRSCHNER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, there are three vehicles for Congress to enforce its subpoenas. Civil enforcement, I would say, let`s just throw that one out because that`s what they tried with Don McGahn, Joy, and he ran out the clock for more than two years and he was never compelled by a court to testify. He ultimately negotiated some very favorable terms of behind closed doors testimony.

That leaves two alternatives. One, criminal contempt, what the Congress can do is vote out a contempt against the witness who fails to appear, refer it to the Department of Justice.

[19:05:02]

And then the law says that the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, quote, has a duty to present the matter to the grand jury for its action. What does that action look like? A criminal indictment for contempt of Congress. And that can be used as a vehicle to force a witness to testify or send him to prison for a year if he declines.

The third option that I hope Congress will seriously consider is its inherent power of contempt. It was last used in the 1920s and `30s, used successfully by Congress, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that it`s a lawful tool in Congress` toolbox. When it comes to a guy like Steve Bannon, who there can be no claim of executive privilege for, he left the administration in August of 2017. I hope Congress seriously considers using its power of inherent contempt and force him to testify because not all contemptuous witnesses are made equal.

REID: Yes. And, you know, let`s go on to some of the newer subpoenas. Claire, I`m going to start with you on this. So, Ali Alexander, he has been one of the more interesting figures in this attempted coup on the country because he has bragged that he had help, that he had help inside the Congress. He`s one of the organizers of the so-called Stop the Steal. He has said that Congressman Andy Biggs, Congressman Mo Brooks and Congressman Paul Gosar helped him plan his D.C. rally, which was not the ellipse rally, it was a different D.C. rally.

Speaking of Andy Biggs, let me let you listen to him today. He had an exchange with Congressman Jamie Raskin that I think you will find interesting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): I hear him not even to be accepting the results of this audit, which say that Joe Biden got more votes than were lawfully reported. Do you accept this audit which showed that Joe Biden won and indeed by more votes than --

REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-AZ): That is not what the audit concluded, Mr. Raskin.

RASKIN: Who won the election in Arizona? Donald Trump --

BIGGS: We don`t know. Because as the audit -- it demonstrates very clearly, Mr. Raskin, there are a lot of issues with this election that took place.

RASKIN: Madam Chair, there is the problem that we have. Donald Trump refuses to accept the results. And, unfortunately, we have one of the world`s great political, parties which has followed him off of the ledge of this electoral lunacy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Claire, it seems to me the logical next person to be subpoenaed would be Andy Biggs, if it was me. What do you think?

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, all three of them. I mean, we have a witness who is now saying -- who has said publicly, if you are investigating this, that he was in coordination and cooperation with members of Congress.

Now, it may turn out after they`re subpoenaed and we get their testimony, that there was not anything that was beyond blind loyalty to a guy who doesn`t understand the rule of law or what our democracy is all about, but we now know that there is someone who planned this that says he was working with members of Congress. So, them trying to avoid saying what they know is just not going to come out in the wash.

And I will tell you this, Joy, having talked to some of the members, they are determined not to be trumped in this investigation, and by that I mean they are determined not to allow his acolytes to avoid the scrutiny they deserve by just running out the clock.

And I`ve said this before and give me just a second to say it again, if we have the majority and we can get it done, and I think we can get some Republicans, we must create a rocket docket in the courts for congressional subpoenas. If Congress is asking for information, they deserve to have the facts determined and a decision made by the courts immediately, before anything else is going on. And we`ve got to do that because this running out the clock is what`s really undermining everybody`s faith in this system.

REID: Yes. I mean, and, Kurt, the problem here is that you`re dealing with figures who are used to operating from the fringes that have now moved and eaten up and gobbled up the Republican Party. Ali Alexander is a fringe figure, if everybody has written anything about him. But used to be -- it use to be, so was Steve Bannon. He`s also on that subpoena list.

So, I mean, talk about how this ends up playing out because Republicans have already gotten away with defying subpoenas. They did it before during impeachment. So, what now?

KURT BARDELLA, DCCC ADVISOR: I mean, we spent the better part of four years of the Trump presidency watching Republicans any time a subpoena was issued by the Democratic majority go, we don`t care. They would literally call them fake subpoenas. They would say that we don`t have to even address these at all and they ran out the clock successfully. And all the while they were hailed these heroes for defying congressional oversight.

[19:10:03]

These same Republicans, by the way, who spent the entire eight years of Barack Obama`s presidency issuing subpoenas, having hearings, holding people like Eric Holder and contempt of Congress, thumping their chest every single time about America`s right to know, we have oversight responsibilities, that the path to truth runs through the oversight committee, it`s what Jim Jordan once said at a hearing, that was the standard that they set.

Now, that the shoe is on the other foot, Republicans are assuming that Democrats won`t do the things that Glenn Kirschner was just talking about, that they won`t invoke the inherent powers that they have to rightfully and lawfully enforce subpoenas to get to the truth.

And I`ll tell you, Democrats, if you didn`t learn the lesson during impeachment, if you didn`t learn the lesson from four years of Donald Trump and people like Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows basically telling you to go pound sand every time you invoke your authority, I don`t know what`s going to get you to wake up, but you need to. Because I will tell you, if we don`t use our authority now to get to the bottom of a domestic terrorist attack on our Capitol, if we don`t hold people accountable, if we don`t put people in jail, I don`t know what the point of a democracy is.

REID: I mean, Glen Kirschner, there is -- I mean, Article 3 of the 14th Amendments states that somebody who engaged in insurrection against the United States is actually not qualified to hold office. And I assume that goes all the way from Congress up to the president. There are active criminal investigations against Donald Trump. Georgia is going after him for interfering in their election. Walk us through a way in which Donald Trump could be legally held accountable.

This Senate memo, this committee memo, it makes it very clear that he had a formal plan to steal the election. The Eastman memo makes it clear. This investigation makes it clear. What could he be charged with, if anything? And is there a way to do that to keep him out of the Oval Office again?

KIRSCHNER: Great question, Joy. Yes, the way to hold him accountable is for the Department of Justice to indict him for the many crimes he inarguably committed.

Let`s just take one from the Senate Judiciary Committee`s recently released report, and I think you read the quote in your opening. He is quoted as saying about acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, quote, one thing we know is you, Rosen, aren`t going to do anything to overturn the election, close quote, and then Donald Trump threatened to bring in this character, Jeffrey Clark, who was willing to do Donald Trump`s corrupt and criminal bidding to try to overturn the election results.

And real quickly, Joy, you know, I don`t go anywhere without my big, ugly blue book of federal laws, the United States code. That quote from Donald Trump precisely violates a federal statute, 18 USC 610, coercion of political activities. And it`s very short. It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command or coerce any employee of the federal government to engage in or not engage in political activity.

It`s a three-year federal felony and what was just published by the Senate Judiciary Committee shows inarguably Donald Trump committed that crime. All that is left is for the Department of Justice to step up and indict the crimes we all know Donald Trump committed.

REID: And I guess the question then becomes, Claire, does Merrick Garland have it in him to do that? And there -- you know, I`ve been in a deep dive on the 14th Amendment today, Article 3, that some people believe it`s self- enforcing, that, in fact, Congress could enforce it against people like Mo Brooks and Andy Biggs and others who perhaps engage in insurrection, if it is found they did, right, if they were involved, Paul Gosar being the third. Do you believe Democrats in general have it in them to self-enforce if that`s the way to keep these people out of power or get them out of power?

MCCASKILL: It`s interesting, Joy, because what you`ve got here is you`ve got people who want to cling to the norms.

REID: Yes.

MCCASKILL: The norms are you don`t use the criminal law to go after political opponents. That`s the norm. But the problem is they`re dealing with someone who blew up all the norms and who we all know, if he got the chance, can you imagine how he would stack the DOJ? I mean, it took him a couple of years giving back his hand to people around him who were saying, you can`t do that. You shouldn`t do that. You can`t do that. And then finally he figured out, who cares, I`m going to do it anyway.

REID: That`s right.

MCCASKILL: Well, he would go into office on day one and he would stack DOJ with people like these yahoos and this clown car of lawyers that ran around the country making up lies.

So, I think that Garland -- and, by the way, the professional prosecutors at DOJ are the ones who stopped Donald Trump in that January 3rd meeting, they`ve got to like really take -- do a gut check here. I get it that we don`t like to use criminal law in a political context, but this is a context of saving the democracy and respecting the rule of law. And I think that`s the analysis they have to do and they have to go after Donald Trump for doing what is in plain sight.

[19:15:06]

REID: Yes, absolutely. I wish we had more time because I would do -- what would Republicans do, because in their place, you know, Kurt, the Republicans would waste no time.

BARDELLA: Three words, lock them up. That`s what they would do.

REID: That`s what they would do. Claire, we`ll be back later in the show. Thank you, Glenn Kirschner and Kurt Bardella.

Up next on THE REIDOUT, the draconian abortion law of Texas is blocked by a federal judge. Will this case become another test of Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court?

Plus, a live look at the Senate which, if all goes as planned, fingers crossed, is just moments away from voting to raise the debt ceiling, which would avert an economic catastrophe at least for now. But can we not do better than just kicking the can down the road?

Also, new evidence vaccine mandates work and might be the only way to get anti-vaxxers to take the jab.

Plus, the shocking new video showing just how far the anti-mask crowd is willing to go. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy joins me.

And tonight`s absolute worst, and racism becomes almost a prerequisite for advancement in today`s GQP.

THE REIDOUT continues after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:20:15]

REID: The nation`s strictest abortion law has been put on hold, at least for now.

A federal judge has blocked "The Handmaid`s Tale"-style Texas law that prevents women from ending pregnancies after six weeks, before many women even know that they`re pregnant, and puts lawsuit bounties on their and abortion providers heads.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman calls the law unconstitutional and writes -- quote -- "From the moment S.B.8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution. This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right" -- unquote.

The state of Texas has already filed its intent to appeal the decision. While some Texas abortion providers say that they are providing full services again, others are hesitant because of a provision that Texas Republicans tucked into this bill for this very situation.

It basically states that anyone who performs an abortion or helps in the act, even while the law is temporarily blocked, would still be liable to being sued if the law is reinstated.

Joining me now is Michelle Goldberg, columnist for "The New York Times," and Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney.

And, Joyce, I`m going to start with you, because the appeal is in. Can you walk us through what the appeal, in theory, could be based on and how successful you think that appeal might be, given how conservative the Fifth Circuit is where they are taking this appeal?

JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: So, there are a lot of moving parts in that question, Joy, but, essentially, the state of Texas has gone to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And they will ask a three-judge panel in that court to rule a different way.

They will ask that court to go ahead and put the statute back in operation to remove Judge Pitman`s stay. Either they will win or they will lose their. It`s worth noting that only the Supreme Court can overrule Roe vs. Wade -- excuse me -- and the Fifth Circuit panel is obligated to follow Roe vs. Wade, which suggests that they should keep Judge Pitman`s stay in place if they follow the law.

But, either way, we`re likely to end back up in front of the Supreme Court, where this case could easily be joined with Dobbs, the Mississippi case that the court will hear this term that`s a full frontal challenge to Roe vs. Wade.

REID: And that is the ultimate nightmare, Michelle, that I worry about. And I don`t have any faith that it will not end with Roe vs. Wade being gone.

So, if the worst-case scenario happens, I wonder how much of an earthquake that winds up being among American women. Your thoughts, because this really could be it.

MICHELLE GOLDBERG, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: You know, until the Supreme Court refused to stay this unbelievably outrageous Texas law the first time around, I had thought there was a chance that they might try to get Roe vs. Wade, instead of overturning it outright, because that`s a way that they can foreclose abortion rights, which are all but unavailable in many red states already, without creating exactly the kind of earthquake you`re talking about.

But their total disregard for precedent, their total kind of -- the total contempt with which they handled this whole thing, handing down this decision in the middle of the night to let this bill stand, makes me think that as much as some Supreme Court justices whine about their media coverage, which is kind of a new phenomenon, they actually don`t really care what most Americans think.

And so I would be actually very surprised if they don`t overturn Roe vs. Wade outright. And then I guess the question is what the American people, American women, Americans who believe in reproductive autonomy, what they do next.

So far, this issue hasn`t been getting people out into the streets like some other issues, I think, because people still find it really hard to believe that this could actually happen. But if it did happen, I would -- I would hope that that would be a flash point and a turning point in American politics.

REID: Yes.

Joyce, I mean, I think people have always thought of sort of Roe vs. Wade. You sort of think about the way Republicans think about it, that it`s like a car you don`t really want to catch, because having the issue makes their people vote. But once they actually do it, the real-world implications of having really angry female voters will be a backlash that they don`t want to deal with.

But I kind of feel like, Michelle, that they`re past that now, right? I mean, and if you look at the judges that Mitch McConnell engineered Donald Trump to sign into law, because that`s all he really wanted him for, to have his right hand or his tiny little fingers to sign them into law, let`s look at the Fifth Circuit, 17 judges on the 15th -- on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Twelve are Republican appointees. Only five are Democratic appointees, Trump appointed six of them, six of them. So this is a court that is sort of built to do the thing that far right has said this is their main voting thing. This is what they care about.

[19:25:06]

So, I wonder -- if we just assume Roe is going to be gone? What kind of judicial chaos might that unleash?

I wonder what next, you know, legally? Could women be arrested for having abortions? Like, how bad could this be?

VANCE: Losing Roe would change the entire landscape, Joy, because having Roe in place and protecting the rights of American people to obtain abortions prior to viability without any restriction has opened up a whole host of conduct, including, as you point out, the fact that the law can`t criminalize the conduct that the person who obtains the abortion engages in.

All of that could change if we lose Roe. And it`s worth noting that many of the Trump judicial appointees, when they were questioned in the Senate at their confirmation hearings, they would decline to agree to follow stare decisis, the binding notion of precedent in the American legal system, which says that all of the lower courts must follow Supreme Court cases and that even the Supreme Court honors long-standing precedent and doesn`t reverse it unless there are good, solid reasons to do that.

The example that was used in many of those confirmations was Brown vs. Board of Education, where you had this remarkable site of federal judicial nominees who refused to say that they believe that Brown was properly decided.

And so now that opens up the notion that, if Roe vs. Wade is fair game, what else? What else among our time-honored rights or perhaps even some of our newer rights might be vulnerable to a court that no longer holds these values in the same sort of sense that prior courts have?

REID: And I fear, Michelle, that the next is Brown. It`s being able to -- they also have a case about whether or not religious schools can get federal funding.

See more here:
Transcript: The ReidOut, 10/7/21 - MSNBC

Attorney General Merrick Garlandissued a memoon Monday directing the Department of Justice and the FBI to launch a series of additional efforts in the coming days designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.

The Garland memo looks like an effort to use the FBI tothreaten and silence parentswho are outspoken opponents ofcritical race theory in schools. That alone would be a stunning partisan abuse of power. What Garland has done, however, is even more disgraceful.

Maybe Garland doesnt actually intend to use the FBI to go after parentsmaybe he knows that he doesnt have that power. In that case, hes trying to trick parents into thinking that he does. This tactic, he hopes, will suppress parents free speech, and throw a bone to a powerful ally of his political party.

Even a few FBI agents questioning parents may be enough to convince others that standing up for their values is not worth the risk.

To understand what Garland is doing with this memo, youll need a short primer on the background facts and government legalese.

Starting with the facts: What is this rise in criminal conduct against school officials? You wont find any evidence cited in Garlands memo.You wont find any evidence in theFBIs crime dataeither.

This claim is parroted from alettersent to President Joe Biden by theNational School Boards Associationa powerful leftist group representing many of the school boards around the country pushing critical race theory curricula. That letter made vague claims about threats and acts of violence against school board members from parents who oppose critical race theory.

The letter complained about disruptions by angry parents but managed to find only one example of violence against a school official (likely a security guard), which was handled by local law enforcement.

Most of the letter is the National School Boards Association clutching its pearls, aghast that justifiably angry parents are zealously advocating for their childrens interest. The tactics thus far employed certainly are nothing compared to the riots of the summer of 2020 that destroyedover a billion dollarsin property and resulted in multiple deaths.

Those tactics were not decried by the National School Boards Association and its liberal friends. In fact, the current vice presidentorganized financial supportto the criminals engaged.

The National School Boards Association is not really concerned about an isolated instance of violence adequately handled by local law enforcement. It is much more upset that it is powerless to stop parents from exercising their First Amendment rights to push back against critical race theory in the classroom.

And so, in a move that is nearly a reflex among many leftist organizations, it asked the government to lend it some of its law enforcement power to shut up its meddling critics. Garland was only too happy to oblige. In doing so, he has made a hypocrite out of himself and Biden.

When Biden announced Garlands nomination, hepromised to uphold the independenceof the DOJ from the political influence of the White House. Garlandpromised the same, saying:

I have spent my whole professional life looking up to Ed Levi and the other post-Watergate Attorneys General who stood up on behalf of the Department against impermissible pressure and influence. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, I intend to do the same.

There is no clearer example of political influence seeping into the DOJ than a demand letter to the president from a leftist advocacy group turning into a DOJ memorandum in less than a week.

But Garlands weaponization of the DOJ has a problem: There is no conceivable basis for federal law enforcement action against these parents.

Unlike Attorney General Eric Holder, who twisted and abused the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Actto silence pro-life advocates, Garland cant find any law that he can similarly mangle to silence parents. If he could, he would have put it in the memo.

But the parents dont know that.

And here enters the government legalese.Garlands memo fails to cite any basis for law enforcement action by the DOJ or the FBI, but it hides that with a morass of official language that says nothing more than that federal law enforcement will provide some advice to local school boards.

FBI agents and federal prosecutors (who have nothing better to do, apparently) will travel the country giving school boards the phone number of their local police and the web address of the FBIs internet tip line.

After the sound and fury calms, nothing beside remains.

What do we make of all this?

First, there is no reason to bring federal law enforcement into this; local authorities have this under control.

Second, Garland has demonstrated, disappointingly, that he is beholden to powerful leftist political groups and perfectly happy to let them use the threat of federal governments law enforcement power to suppress their critics right to free speech. The promised impendence of the DOJ is a farce.

Third, it is more important to Garland to spend scarce law enforcement resources appeasing liberal interest groups than on more pressing national concerns.

Fourth, some good news, parents need not be afraid. It is their constitutional right to push back in legal ways against schools teaching children critical race theory.

Go forth to the school boards and make your voices heard.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

View original post here:
Attorney General Garland Abuses Power He Doesn't Have to Threaten Parents - Heritage.org

RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) With people able to watch live online, state lawmakers began the process of drawing new electoral district maps Wednesday, as experts predicted a legal battle likely will follow once the maps are approved.

Following the 2020 Census, the Republican-controlled General Assembly is tasked with creating new districts for both chambers of the state legislature and the U.S. House based on shifts in the states population.

If the past 40 years worth of history tell us anything, North Carolina redistricting will go from the legislature to the lawyers, said Dr. Michael Bitzer, an expert in politics at Catawba College. This process reflects the dynamic that redistricting is the most intensely partisan activity in American politics.

In recent years, courts have thrown out maps generated by in North Carolina for racial and partisan gerrymandering.

Due to North Carolinas population growth, the state is gaining a seat in the U.S. House, bringing the total to 14.

The maps, however they are drawn, will likely include this 14th Congressional district (this new Congressional district in the state) to be a Republican-leaning district, Bitzer said.

Republicans leading the states redistricting effort are aiming to have maps approved by the end of the month, which could then be subject to legal challenges depending on how theyre drawn. Candidate filing for the 2022 primary begins Dec. 6.

The dynamics of what we have seen from the Biden Department of Justice with the statement about Section 2 and the Voting Rights Act, to the former Attorney General Eric Holder who has targeted North Carolina as a potential litigation site over redistricting. I think this going to end up probably in both state and federal court, Bitzer said. Its anybodys guess how that will go, but the process probably will play itself out all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legislators have set up two rooms where the public can watch the redistricting process live and see edits made to proposed maps as they occur.

Is there this map thats already been drawn? I would have to say of course there is. Theyre not starting, really, with a blank canvas, said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause NC. Its only transparent to a point.

With Democrats in Congress holding slim majorities leading into the 2022 midterm elections, Phillips expects there to be intense national attention on what lawmakers approve.

I suspect that folks are coming in knowing what they need to do, that the maps both sides want will be drawn, he said. Is this more of a performance? I would have to say in some ways it is because we dont have an independent entity.

Rep. John Torbett (R-Gaston County) is one of the members overseeing the process in his chamber.

Historically speaking, I think no matter what we do theres probably already litigation in a can somewhere just with blanks waiting to be filled in, he said. Maybe we can get through just once without a string of litigation.

Sen. Ben Clark (D-Hoke County), who is not running for re-election to the General Assembly but still undecided on a run for Congress or another office, said hes concerned about racial data not being included in the process and the lack of ability to analyze the maps to make sure theyre compliant with the (Voting Rights Act).

If we dont have transparency then the potential for lawsuits is quite high. But, if we have transparency, then when things are being done improperly, they can be called out at that time and hope corrections can be made, he said.

See the original post:
North Carolina redistricting will go from legislature to the lawyers, expert says - WNCT

The FBI director, Chris Wray, is facing new scrutiny of the bureaus handling of its 2018 background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh, including its claim that the FBI lacked the authority to conduct a further investigation into the then supreme court nominee.

At the heart of the new questions that Wray will face later this week, when he testifies before the Senate judiciary committee, is a 2010 Memorandum of Understanding that the FBI has recently said constrained the agencys ability to conduct any further investigations of allegations of misconduct.

It is not clear whether that claim is accurate, based on a close reading of the MOU, which was released in court records following a Freedom of Information Act request.

Allow Scribd content?

This article includes content provided by Scribd. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click 'Allow and continue'.

The FBI was called to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation process in 2018, after he was accused of assault by Christine Blasey Ford, a professor who knew Kavanaugh when they were both in high school. He also faced other accusations, including that he had exposed himself to a classmate at Yale called Deborah Ramirez. Kavanaugh denied both accusations.

The FBI closed its extended background check of Kavanaugh after four days and did not interview either Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh. The FBI also disclosed to the Senate this June two years after questions were initially asked that it had received 4,500 tips from the public during the background check and that it had shared all relevant tips with the White House counsel at that time. It is not clear whether those tips were ever investigated.

The FBI said in its letter to two senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Christopher Coons that the FBI did not have the authority under the 2010 MOU at the time to unilaterally conduct further investigative activity absent instructions from the requesting entity. In other words, the FBI has said it would have required explicit instructions from the Trump White House to conduct further investigation under the existing 2010 guidelines on how such investigations ought to be conducted.

But an examination by the Guardian of the 2010 MOU, which was signed by the then attorney general, Eric Holder, and then White House counsel, Robert Bauer, does not make explicitly clear that the FBI was restricted in terms of how it would conduct its investigation.

The MOU, which was released in court documents in 2019 as part of Freedom of Information Act litigation brought against the US government by Buzzfeed, also does not explicitly state that the White House had the power to set the process parameters on any investigation. The MOU does seem to suggest that the White House had the authority to limit the FBI to investigate particular issues and questions.

Wray is likely to face scrutiny on why information that was specific to the allegations of sexual misconduct was not fully explored, including evidence that was reportedly offered to investigators by an alleged witness named Max Stier, an attorney and former classmate of Ramirez, who reportedly notified senators that he had witnessed an event similar to the one recounted by Ramirez.

Stiers account was never examined by the FBI.

In a statement to the Guardian,Whitehouse, the senator from Rhode Island who has led Democrats demand for answers on the investigation, said: In its years-late response to our questions, the FBI leaned hard on the notion that this MOU limited its authority to be the FBI and investigate wrongdoing. Now that we have the MOU, its even harder to understand the Bureaus excuses for ignoring credible information it received. Director Wray ought to be ready to answer my questions about this episode I wont stop asking until he does.

The FBI declined to comment.

Wray will be testifying before the Senate on Wednesday, at a hearing that will be focused on the FBIs handling of its investigation into Larry Nassar, the convicted sex offender who served for 18 years as the team doctor of the US womens national gymnastics team. Simone Biles, the US gymnast and Olympic gold medalist, will also be testifying.

Kavanaugh was confirmed to his lifetime appointment on the court on 6 October 2018 by a vote of 50-48 and helped cement a conservative majority on the powerful body.

Visit link:
FBI director faces new scrutiny over investigation of Brett Kavanaugh - The Guardian

Free Oakland news, written by Oaklanders, delivered straight to your inbox.

Don't let Facebook's algorithm control your news. Sign up to get free Oakland news in your inbox.

Thank you for supporting The Oaklandside and being a part of our community. Your donation makes this and all our other local reporting possible.

A donation to The Oaklandside goes beyond the newsroom. We amplify community voices, share the power of real information, and investigate systems, not just symptoms.

Get the free Oakland newsletter. Local news delivered to your inbox twice a week

Market Daze, Oaklands first city-permitted cannabis festival, will take place this Labor Day weekend at Frank Ogawa Plaza. Smoakland, an online cannabis shop and delivery service headquartered in Oakland, is hosting the event, which has been two years in the making.

There is no standard, formal application process here so its definitely been challenging to be the first and go through this gauntlet, said Chang Yi, Smoaklands director. No one else [in Oakland] has been able to successfully permit a cannabis sales event.

Oakland-based retailers such as Harborside, Korova, and Blunts + More will sell an array of cannabis products, and attendees will be able to sample their merchandise akin to a wine tasting. Other members of the cannabis industry, like Weedmaps, will also be present.

We joined the event about a month and a half ago and were really excited that its going to be the first legal sesh in Oakland, said Alexis Mora, Harborsides head of marketing, which is a big step forward for the cannabis industry.

The event is being held in conjunction with Hiero Day, an annual concert hosted by local music collective Hieroglyphics. Attendees can expect performances from Hieroglyphics and Grand Nationxl, as well as a Turf Inc dance battle.

Tajai Massey, recording artist and partner at Hieroglyphics Emporium, told The Oaklandside that Hieroglyphics decided to reach out to Yi after realizing Hiero Day wouldnt happen this year in its pre-pandemic model. Smoakland, which sponsored Hiero Day in 2019, obliged.

Hiero Day is a tradition and we dont want to break that tradition by continuing it as a virtual event, which people are sort of burnt out on, Massey said. Instead of us doing a big event and have it possibly be a super-spreader event, we decided to team up with Smoakland and make the best event we can, with safe protocols.

Hiero Day events will include a listening party at Moxy in Uptown from 4-8 p.m, a movie screening at 409 13th St. starting at 8 p.m (both on Saturday), and a standup comedy show at Copper Spoon on Sunday at 8 p.m. Hiero Day will conclude with performances on Monday, Sept. 6 at Frank Ogawa Plaza.

Yi refers to Market Daze as a sesh, meaning a large gathering of people who get together to smoke and consume weed. Similar events are held in Oakland but are unsanctioned and advertised clandestinely.

Theres sessions everywhere, but this one is happening in a way thats in compliance as far as tested products, tried and true brands, and the use of PPE and social distancing protocols, Massey said. This is part of a lot of our lifestyles, and it shouldnt be hidden or treated like its taboo.

Smoakland isnt the first group to attempt hosting a permitted cannabis event in Oakland, but they are the first to successfully pull it off. In July, Edward Brown was set to host a cannabis fair he dubbed Preserving the Plant, only to be notified three days before the event about a $6,634 security fee he would have to pay the Oakland Police Department.

Yi was also notified about the security fee but managed to pay it. He said OPD is requiring him to have one sergeant and three officers on site for each of the three days.

Paul Chambers, OPDs strategic communications manager, told The Oaklandside that OPD officers and private security guards will be onsite and that the plan is to have no more than 500 people in at a time.

Yi likened the event approval process to a marathon. Weve been trying for two years to permit this, he said. Hurdles included pausing the application process as a result of the pandemic, and finding an appropriate venue. Yi initially looked into hosting the event at a bar or restaurant, but the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control prohibits vendors from selling cannabis and alcohol together. Yi looked at several outdoor venues before settling on Frank Ogawa Plaza.

Since Oakland had never permitted a cannabis sales event, Yi said he had to meet multiple times with various city agencies to work through the application process. Overall, the city has been very supportive, Yi said, but we have had some pushback here and there.

Harborside, which opened in 2006 and was the first dispensary in Oakland, has experienced changing attitudes towards cannabis sale and consumption. In 2016, Harborside reached a deal with federal prosecutors after a years-long attempt beginning in the early 2010s to shut the dispensary down. It was one among hundreds of California dispensaries targeted by the Justice Department under former Attorney General Eric Holder.

Weve been fighting over the last couple of years to kind of bring cannabis out of the shadows and into the light, Mora said, and when you have events like this, it helps normalize this plant that so many people use.

Tickets for Market Daze are available at Smoakland.com/Events for the general admission price of $5 for single day tickets and $10 for three day tickets.

We believe all Oakland residents deserve more in-depth reporting, perspectives, and resources to help us better enjoy, understand, and impact our beautiful city.

If you can, we hope youll help keep our journalism free for all readers by becoming a monthly member of The Oaklandside.

The Oaklandside relies on your support to remain free for everyone in our community. A donation goes beyond supporting our journalism.

It helps your family, friends and Oakland neighbors have access to reliable, independent reporting.

See the rest here:
Oakland's first permitted cannabis fest is happening this weekend - The Oaklandside