Mediaboss Marketing

In advance of tomorrows snap hearing of the Jan. 6 select committee, we are publishing the updated criminal evidence tracker (available below and as a PDF).

Thursdays fifth hearing of committee focused on former President Donald Trumps campaign to misuse his own Department of Justice in his efforts to overturn an election he lost, and in particular the role of his main collaborator at DOJ, former DOJ assistant attorney general Jeffrey Clark. We outline what the legal significance of what we learned in the hearing about Trumps efforts, Clarks role and more in the fifth edition of our criminal evidence tracker.

The live witnesses were former acting attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen, former acting deputy attorney general Richard P. Donoghue and the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, assistant attorney general Steven Engel. They were examined in a hearing led by Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger and supplemented by the frequently explosive video testimony of other key players, making for another powerful day.

Thursday was notable because more than any of the other hearings, it occurred against the backdrop of significant outside events that were closely related to the subject matter of the hearing. In the 24 hours before the hearings, news broke of multiple subpoenas, including search warrants, relating to the federal criminal investigation of the phony elector scheme. That was capped off with breaking news of federal investigators executing a search warrant on the Virginia home of the main player (besides Trump) of the hearing that followed, Clark.

Clark infamously tried to help Trump overthrow DOJ leadership and overturn the election, resulting in his taking the Fifth Amendment over 100 times in his deposition before the committee. Both the raid on his premises and the content of Thursdays hearing suggested he had good reason.

With the raid and the hearing, we learned two big things: Clark is at severe risk of criminal prosecution. And Trumps exposure got worse.

Among other potential crimes, their exposure may fit within the likely criminal conspiracy (in the words of a federal judge in California) to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371) and to obstruct an official congressional proceeding (under 18 U.S.C. 1512). The likely fraud involved interfering with government functions to prevent the legitimate winner of the election from taking office. That included Trump, with Clarks help, pushing for the fraudulent slates of electors. The likely obstruction included Trumps attempt, again with Clarks help, to use those phony electoral slates as part of a scheme to interfere with congressional recognition of Bidens electors. We explain the new evidence in the linked trackers of evidence of those two federal crimes.

New evidence about possible violation of Georgia criminal law regarding the solicitation of election fraud also came in on Thursday, and we update the third tracker as to that crime as well. For example, the Committee focused on Clarks Dec. 28, 2020, draft DOJ letter containing express references to substituting a separate slate of electors in Georgia and several other states. We heard in the hearing from Clarks superiors, the top leadership of DOJ under Trump, that the proposed letter which Clark tried to get Rosen and Donoghue to signwas totally unfounded. They, along with Engel, numerous witnesses on video, and the committee members, painted a devastating picture of Clarks likely criminalityand certain incompetence. As but one example, White House lawyer Eric Herschmann warned Clark that sending the letter would constitute a felony.

Of course, its not only Clark whose situation got worse with the most recent hearing. Thats because as the committee noted at the previous hearing, President Trump and his campaign were directly involved in advancing and coordinating the plot to have state legislatures replace legitimate Biden electors with fake electors. A loophole in the Presidential Election Day Act of 1845 was central to this plot and a key part of the draft Clark letter that Rosen and Donoghue refused to sign. The 1845 law potentially allows state legislatures to declare that an election has failed and then to replace the choice of presidential electors made by the voters with electors selected by the state legislature itself. Clarks draft letter to Georgia said that the purpose of the special session would be for the Georgia legislature to determine whether the election failed to make a proper and valid choice between the candidates. And now we have learned about how Trump pushed hard to engage DOJ in his coup attempt and tried to thrust Clark upon DOJ as acting attorney general.

The fifth hearing presented some of the most compelling evidence to date of Trump explicitly running the coup effort. His directive to acting attorney general Rosen and acting deputy attorney general Donoghue to just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen, is well-described as a smoking gun in establishing Trumps criminal intent.

Criminal intent as to the fake elector scheme would not be hard to prove, as one of us explained in the Washington Post last week. Whatever Trump and Clark may have believed about the outcome of the election, they are not allowed to engage in a scheme involving forgery, any more than someone who feels the US Treasury has ripped them off can respond by counterfeiting currency in the amount they are owed. Whatever they believed, they cannot break the law to address the problems they perceived (problems which of course were false). It is vigilantism, and thats against the law. OJ Simpson spent a considerable time in jail after he used force to break into a hotel room and seize memorabiliaeven though he believed it was his property.

There was much more of note in the hearing itself. That included important new revelations about Trump wanting to seize voting machines, pursue absurd conspiracy theories and insert one of his associates, Sidney Powell, as special counsel at DOJ to investigate voter fraud. To top all that off, the hearing ended with shocking evidence that a number of congressmen who helped Trump with the scheme were so concerned about their own criminal exposure that they sought pardons. That final bombshell sent the committee into a couple of weeks off with momentum for when the hearings resume in July.

Together with all else we learned Thursday, there is plenty to discuss in the interim. The committee has already presented formidable evidence that Trump led a criminal conspiracy in a coup attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election from the duly elected winner. The Committee has previewed that there is more important evidence to come. All the while, the country has still not seen one shred of credible evidence from Trump and his allies that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election that affected the result or justified the conduct we map in our three trackers.

We will continue to update our charts after tomorrows snap hearing and future hearings. The current editions are provided below and as a separate PDF.

The January 6th Hearings a

See the original post here:
In Advance of the Snap Hearing ... the Jan. 6 Criminal Evidence Tracker Fifth Edition - Just Security

Texas State Supreme Court ruled 5-3 in favor of train project seizing private land, but in accordance to the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

DALLAS The company proposing a $30-billion projectto build a high-speed bullet train that will shorten the commute from Dallas to Houston by two and a half hours received a win on Monday, but it may come at a cost to landowners.

On Monday, the Texas State Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision in favor of Texas Central's project that'll run through Central Texas and said the organization was entitled to private land of the planned trail connecting the two major cities on the basis of "eminent domain."

"Eminent domain" is a Fifth Amendment right from the Bill of Rights that says the government can seize privately-owned property, but as long as they pay for it.

In the High Speed Rail Alliance's article, Texas Central can pay fair-market rates to acquire the land needed to construct the 240-mile railway, which would turn a four-hour drive into a 90-minute train ride.

The commute from Dallas to Houston is one of the fastest growing super commute in the country. Part of that commute is a stretch of Interstate 45 was ranked the nation's most dangerous road in America,according to our sister station KHOU.

Texas Central celebrated this Supreme Court decision, in a quote from our sister station in Dallas, WFAA, saying, "We are appreciative to the Texas Supreme Court for their time and consideration of this important issue as we continue work on this innovative high-speed passenger train rail."

Read more:
Possible Texas bullet train gets major win, but at the cost of landowners - KCENTV.com

At the end of last week, the U.S. House passed an agreement backed by Democrats and some Republicans on gun safety measures.

The proposal, which was hammered out by U.S. Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, authorizes $750 million over five years to the states for red flag laws over five years, including funds for mental health efforts. The bill also sends $12 billion to other mental health funds and $300 million for school security. The legislation would also end the boyfriend loophole so that domestic abusers who do not live with the partners they abuse would not be able to buy a gun. The bill also expands background checks to include looking at juvenile records for 18-21 year-old gun buyers.

After the U.S. Senate passed the measure on a 65-33 vote earlier in the week, the House followed suit on a 234-193 vote. Fourteen Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida, voted with the Democratic majority. Outside of Salazar, party lines held in the Florida delegation.

President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on Saturday.

Democrats from the Sunshine State presented the new law as a step forward for public safety.

No parent should fear for their childs life when they go to school, the grocery store, their church, a movie theater, or anywhere else they are supposed to be safe, said U.S. Rep. Lous Frankel, D-Fla. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is a step forward that will help protect our children and save lives.

For too long, our countrys gun violence epidemic has ravaged communities everywhere, and I am tired of burying young black boys, said U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla. Finally, Congress has listened to the cries of the victims of gun violence and rebuked the gun lobby. I am proud to vote for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and deliver real solutions in our fight to prevent gun violence and address its root causes.

This legislation is a long-awaited mark of progress, but our work is not done. I have long advocated for increased funding for mental health provisions and additional care for our schoolchildren by building pathways away from violence, but until we ban assault weapons, we are nowhere near the finish line. I will not stop fighting until weapons of war are removed from our streets. Today is a small but necessary step in the right direction to honor the countless victims, families, and survivors who continue feeling the pain of gun violence, Wilson added.

Republicans in the Florida delegation insisted the proposal undermines the Second Amendment.

Democrats see the United States Constitution as an inconvenience and will stop at nothing to legislate away the fundamental rights established in the Bill of Rights in their ruthless grab for control over the American people. The Safer Communities Act of 2022 is a knee-jerk reaction bill that tramples the Second Amendment and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in attempting to do something. Contrary to the narratives in the media, Republicans have children too and the safety of our most vulnerable is of utmost importancebut we cannot erode our constitutionally assured freedoms in the name of making us safer, said U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.

While I support some elements of this legislationsuch as the expansion of mental health services, penalties for illegal trafficking of firearms, and school hardeningI am vehemently opposed to key sections of this legislation. My no vote today reflects my direct opposition to provisions in the bill that add duplicative and hindering background checks and the blatant assault on Americans Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights through the support of unconstitutional Red Flag Laws. In the wake of tragedy, the easy decision is to buckle under the political headwinds of bully pulpits and political positioningbut the day we fold our constitutional rights in the face of adversity is the day our republic dies, he added.

I am voting against S.2938, the Senates gun control bill. While the bill contains good provisions recognizing the underlying mental health issues behind most of these violent attacks, I am concerned that it does more to chip away at law-abiding citizens Second Amendment rights than prevent violent crimes. It authorizes spending to incentivize state actions without sufficient guardrails to ensure Americans due process rights are protected. I have, and will, continue to work to identify and tackle the root causes of violent crimes, while making sure that such solutions do not infringe upon those lawfully exercising their constitutional rights, said U.S. Rep. Dan Webster, R-Fla.

In recent years, Florida has improved communication among law enforcement agencies and provided key investments in mental health and school safety. As a result of these actions and federal laws that already exist to harden schools, support mental health care, and require extensive background checks, Floridas schools, students, and communities have been made safer without eroding the Second Amendment or due process protections, he continued.

Originally from Jacksonville, Kevin Derby is the editor of Florida Daily and covers politics across Florida. Reach Kevin at kevin.derby@floridadaily.com

Continue reading here:
Florida Delegation Breaks on Party Lines-With One Exception-on Gun Vote in the House - Florida Daily

It was nearly six years ago when Donald Trump made a comment at a Florida rally he probably wishes he could take back.

The mob takes the Fifth Amendment, the then-candidate said at the time, deriding those who assert their right against self-incrimination. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

It was a rhetorical question that came to mind during yesterdays Jan. 6 committee hearing, as Vice Chair Liz Cheney thanked the witnesses for participating in the proceedings. From the transcript:

[I]ts been an honor to spend time with you and with our previous witnesses here today. To date, more than 30 witnesses called before this committee have not done what youve done, but have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

That number stood out, in part because its such a large total, and in part because its much higher than we previously knew.

Circling back to our earlier coverage, there are several high-profile figures from Team Trump whom we already knew pleaded the Fifth:

If Cheneys comments were accurate, however, were not talking about five people from Team Trump who were concerned about giving self-incriminating answers; were talking about 30 such people.

To be sure, Americans have these rights under the Constitution. If members of the former presidents team have reason to be concerned about possible prosecution, its not too surprising that their legal counsel would encourage them to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.

Whats more, its also worth noting that Cheney wasnt specific about who these people were, and its at least possible that some of the group didnt work for the Trump administration or the former presidents political operation.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the total number of people taking the Fifth is much higher than previously known.

As for the context, the top Republican quickly added that she has a specific witness in mind whom shes eager to speak with.

The American people have not yet heard from Mr. Trumps former White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, Cheney said. Our committee is certain that Donald Trump does not want Mr. Cipollone to testify here. Indeed, our evidence shows that Mr. Cipollone and his office tried to do what was right. They tried to stop a number of President Trumps plans for Jan. 6. Today and in our coming hearings you will hear testimony from other Trump White House staff explaining what Mr. Cipollone said and did including on January 6th. But we think the American people deserve to hear from Mr. Cipollone personally.

A person close to Cipollone told NBC News late yesterday, Pat has been cooperative with the committee with President Trumps permission, but there are serious institutional concerns and privilege issues and those have been recognized by the committee.

Watch this space.

The House Jan. 6 committee is holding its fifth public hearing on Thursday, June 23 at 3 p.m. ET. Get expert analysis in real-time on our liveblog atmsnbc.com/jan6hearings.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

See original here:
How many Trump insiders pleaded the Fifth in the Jan. 6 probe? - MSNBC

FOX News contributor Andy McCarthy reacts to Thursday's January 6th Committee hearing: "The last thing that Representative Cheney did was point out is that Jeff Clark took the Fifth when he was asked the same questions that they were asking the witnesses. If a prosecutor brought that out in a trial, that would be a mistrial. That's like a basic constitutional due process violation. For the life of me, I continue not to understand not only why this committee would not present a different perspective when they have witnesses that could clearly deal with cross examination if there were cross examination. And then why do this very powerful presentation, which I think this last hour certainly was, and then at the end point out that people are taking the Fifth Amendment which they have a constitutional entitlement to do and the courts have said if you let that infect a fact-finding proceeding, it's a constitutional violation. I don't understand it."

Originally posted here:
Andy McCarthy: Cheney Pointing Out A Witness Taking The Fifth Amendment Is A Basic Constitutional Violation - RealClearPolitics