Mediaboss Marketing

FLINT, MI -- The jury in a civil Flint water crisis trial is expected to hear from a former emergency manager for the city on Tuesday, April 19, but wont know until then whether that testimony will be given in-person or through a videotaped deposition he gave nearly two years ago.

Gerald Ambrose, who worked as Flints last emergency manager in 2015, is expected to be questioned outside the presence of a 10-person jury on Tuesday to determine whether he intends to invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to an order issued Monday, April 18, by U.S. District Court Judge Judith E. Levy.

Ambrose and four other potential witnesses, including former Gov. Rick Snyder, are facing criminal charges tied to the water crisis and have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to hear their request for a review of an earlier ruling by Levy that required them to testify.

In the ruling, Levy rejected a request from Ambrose, Snyder and the other witnesses to quash their subpoenas in the civil trial and to allow them to invoke their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination to all questions they are asked.

The Court of Appeals has not announced whether it will hear those appeals and on Monday, Levy issued an order saying attorneys for four Flint children can proceed in their case by calling Ambrose as a witness.

The children have filed negligence claims against two companies -- Veolia North Amercia and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam -- that advised the city during the water crisis.

Levys Monday order says that if Ambrose refuses to answer questions on Tuesday, he can be declared an unavailable witness and attorneys for the children can use his videotaped deposition as testimony.

Court filings say Ambrose gave his deposition in June 2020, more than six months before he was indicted by a grand jury on four felony counts of misconduct in office.

Depending on the Courts of Appeals decision, Ambrose could be required to return to the stand to answer additional questions and could risk contempt of court charges if he maintains his silence.

Attorneys for Ambrose have previously told Levy of his intent to invoke his right against self-incrimination.

Whether his testimony on Tuesday is in-person or his video-taped, Ambrose is likely to be questioned about his involvement in particular with Veolia, which worked on problems with discoloration and elevated levels of chlorine byproducts in Flint water in 2015.

Veolia witnesses have testified that Ambrose and other city officials told them that re-connecting Flint to the Detroit water system was not an option despite evidence that city water, drawn from the Flint River in parts of 2014 and 2015, could be corroding transmission pipes and home plumbing.

The children who are suing Veolia and LAN claim the companies were negligent in advising the city about its water system and claim they were damaged by elevated levels of lead in their water.

The companies have questioned the extent of the childrens injuries and deny they are responsible for any injuries they suffered.

Attorneys for the children had previously asked Levy to allow them to present Ambroses video deposition to the jury, which she declined.

But in her order Monday, the judge said she will allow the attorneys to call witnesses in their preferred order.

If the Sixth Circuit denies the motions by Snyder, Ambrose and others, Veolia and LAN will be permitted to recall Ambrose to the stand in person, Levys order says. The former emergency manager can then either assert his Fifth Amendment rights or answer questions within the scope the Court will set forth.

Levys Monday order also says that if the Court of Appeals grants permission for leave to appeal and affirms her order, Veolia and LAN will be permitted to recall Ambrose to the stand in person and ask questions within the scope set forth by the court.

If the Sixth Circuit reverses Levys order, the companies will also be permitted to recall Ambrose to the stand in person so that the jury can hear his intention to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In any event, Defendants will not be deprived of having Mr. Ambrose testify or assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in front of the jury, the order says.

Read more at The Flint Journal:

Snyder asks for speedy 5th Amendment decision as delay causes issues in childrens Flint water trial

Five charged with Flint water crimes still plan to not testify in civil trial

3 charged with Flint water crimes have 5th Amendment concerns about testifying

Go here to see the original:
Former Flint EM expected to take the stand Tuesday but may refuse to answer questions - MLive.com

Special Counsel John Durham continues to drop bombshells in filings in the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Just last week, Durham defeated an effort by Sussmann to dismiss the charges. He is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as not technically plausible and user created. He also revealed that at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate in fear that they might incriminate themselves in criminal conduct. Finally, Durham offers further details on the involvement of Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and former British spy Christopher Steele in the alleged false claims.

The only witness currently immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021 over a month prior to the defendants Indictment in this matter. And the Government immunized Researcher-2 because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination. The Government therefore pursued Researcher-2s immunity in order to uncover otherwise-unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive-1 and others carried out in advance of the defendants meeting with the FBI.

Durham also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele. Indeed, the new requested immunized testimony would come from a Tech executive who allegedly can share information on meetings with Elias and Steele.

Durham notes that both the CIA and FBI were sent on an effective wild goose chase by the Clinton campaign. He notes that the government found the allegations to be manufactured and not even technically possible. He refers to the CIA in the following passage:

Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not technically plausible, did not withstand technical scrutiny, contained gaps, conflicted with [itself], and was user created and not machine/tool generated.

This dovetails with the statements of the Clinton associates themselves who were worried about the lack of support for the Russian collusion claims. Researcher 1 features prominently in those exchanges.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed tech executive allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed university researchers who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to give the base of a very useful narrative. The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic would poke several holes in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but a red herring, according to the indictment.

Researcher-1 repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Lets assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our best case scenario. You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.

Researcher-1 allegedly further warned, We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?

It appears that the time to regroup has passed with the issuance of immunity deals to compel testimony.

Here is the filing:

US-v-Sussmann-04162022-US-Filing

Like Loading...

Visit link:
Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaigns False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate - Jonathan Turley

With heartbreaking videos of mass graves filled with Ukrainian victims of Russian genocide, civilians mowed down by sadistic Russian soldiers and apartment buildings pulverized by Russian missiles, there hasnt been much occasion for mirth. But you can count on Trump World to provide some comic relief.

Turns out North Carolina election officials removed former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows from the states voter rolls after it emerged that Meadows had voted absentee from a North Carolina residence where he had never resided. He not only listed a false address on his absentee ballot application, but his civic-mindedness in exercising his franchise was so fervent that he had registered to vote in two states at the same time.

It was Meadows who teamed up with his former boss to try to pressure Georgias Secretary of State to nullify Georgias 2020 election results and induce him to fraudulently proclaim that a state that Joe Biden had won had been won by Donald Trump. Meadows is among the esteemed band of Trump aides who, subpoenaed to testify about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, either refused to honor the subpoena or invoked their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Hes been referred to the Justice Department for criminal charges for contempt of Congress. But the nation owes Meadows a real debt of gratitude for reminding us that the only apparent voter fraud in the 2020 election was committed by Donald Trumps chief of staff.

Witlessness isnt a crime, but it does seem plain that Meadows is no Einstein. Fumbling to come up with something, anything, that would provide a molecule of support for Trumps fraudulent claim of election fraud, Meadows had this exchange with CNNs Jake Tapper at one point: Do you realize how inaccurate the voter rolls are? he asked the host without any sheepishness on account of his own voter fraud. When Tapper replied that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud, Meadows was ready. Theres no evidence that theres not, either, he said. Thats the definition of fraud, Jake.

With Trump and many of his closest advisers either under criminal investigation, indicted, referred to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution or already convicted, the prospect of a return to power by the former president and the party that swears fealty to him should concentrate Americans minds in a most serious way. It is a real prospect. The thanks accorded Biden for steering America through the national COVID disaster bequeathed him by Trump, record economic growth, an unemployment rate of 3.6% and a historic response to Vladimir Putins invasion of Ukraine is a 39% approval rating. Fifty-five percent of Americans say they disapprove of Bidens job performance.

Just what we need right about now is a Putin loyalist in the White House.

Things dont look promising for democracy either here or abroad if the party of Trump regains power. I think NATO is obsolete, pronounced Trump about the alliance of European democracies that holds a nuclear Russia at bay and is enabling Ukraine to defend itself. Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton believes Trump would have withdrawn from NATO in a second term. And I think Putin was waiting for that, Bolton said.

More than 60 Congressional Republicans recently voted against a resolution expressing support for NATO. Trump is seeking to bolster the bloc of Republicans happy to sell Ukraine down the river. Last weekend he endorsed Ohio Republican J.D. Vance for the Senate, not long after Vance bragged to former chief Trump strategist and twice-indicted podcast host Steve Bannon I gotta be honest with you, I dont really care what happens to Ukraine.

In this season of holidays, as we emerge from pandemic-induced hibernation, its painful to consider that democracy is on the edge. The next months may determine whether and where it survives.

Jeff Robbins is a Boston lawyer and former U.S. delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

See the original post:
Robbins: Here and abroad, democracy hanging in the balance - Boston Herald

The Supreme Court this month will hear its last oral arguments in a term that has been overshadowed by disputes over abortion and the Second Amendment and the confirmation of the nations first Black female justice.

As the country awaits decisions in those potentially landmark cases, three cases stand out as highlights among the remaining disputes to be argued before the justices.

They involve a Trump-era immigration policy, a dispute over a high school football coachs religious practice on school grounds and the Miranda warning that suspects are given by law enforcement.

Its the last set of arguments that will include Justice Stephen Breyer, who will retire this summer. He will be replaced by the newly confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Trump-era remain in Mexico policy

One of the most high-profile fights on the courts docket is a dispute over the Biden administrations effort to end a controversial Trump-era immigration measure that requires asylum-seekers at the southern border to stay in Mexico while their applications are processed.

Arguments will center on whether the Biden administration must continue the policy despite the Department of Homeland Securitys (DHS) conclusion that the measure is not in the United States national interest.

Former President Trumps remain in Mexico policy, implemented in 2019, blocked migrants at the Mexican border from entering the U.S. to apply for asylum, leaving tens of thousands of people awaiting their fates in Mexico and subjecting them to potential persecution and abuse.

More than 60,000 asylum-seekers were returned to Mexico under the policy, formally called the Migrant Protection Protocols, a departure from a previous practice of allowing those fleeing violence to cross the border and apply for asylum within the U.S.

The Biden administrations two efforts to rescind the program were blocked after a lawsuit by the attorneys general of Texas and Missouri. Lower courts found the legal basis for ending the policy lacking, prompting the administrations appeal to the Supreme Court.

DHS has thus been forced to reinstate and continue implementing indefinitely a controversial policy that the Secretary has twice determined is not in the interests of the United States, the administration told the justices in court papers.

The court will hear arguments in the case in the second week of the two-week period during which it is hearing new arguments.

Miranda rights

The justices this week will hear a procedural dispute that stems from a police officers failure to issue a Miranda warning in a case with potentially weighty criminal justice implications.

The case arose after Terence Tekoh, a Los Angeles hospital worker, was accused of sexually assaulting a patient. In the course of investigating, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Carlos Vega brought Tekoh to a private room to talk but did not advise Tekoh of his Miranda rights, which include a notice of the right against self-incrimination while in police custody.

At the conclusion of their meeting, Tekoh had produced a written confession. The partys claims about what transpired in their meeting are at stark odds, with Tekoh claiming Vega coerced him into confessing by threatening to deport Tekoh and his family to their native Cameroon. Vega, by contrast, depicted Tekoh as contrite and remorseful and having confessed voluntarily.

Prosecutors used Tekohs confession as evidence in his criminal trial, but the jury found Tekoh not guilty. Following his acquittal, Tekoh filed a civil lawsuit against Vega for violating his constitutional rights.

Tekoh asked the court to instruct the jury that the prosecutions use of Tekohs confession which arose after he was provided no Miranda warning amounted to an automatic violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The trial court denied Tekohs request, and the jury sided with Vega.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with Tekoh. The appeals court determined that a Miranda violation alone can be the basis for finding an officer liable if the confession is later used at a criminal trial. Vega appealed to the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in the case on April 20. The Biden administration has asked the justices to side with the officer.

Prayer in school athletics

A third upcoming case pits a high school football coach against school administrators who reprimanded the coach over his practice of holding a brief prayer on the fields 50-yard line following games.

A devout Christian, coach Joseph Kennedys custom of kneeling on field and conducting prayer while surrounded by many of his players drew reproach from officials at his Seattle-area public school. Administrators told Kennedy his conduct violated a school policy that prohibited staff from encouraging students to engage in prayer or other devotional activity.

Amid widespread publicity, Kennedy sued the school district, alleging that his First Amendment speech and religious rights were violated. A federal district court in Washington ruled against him, reasoning that Kennedys conduct was not constitutionally protected because it was done in his capacity as a public employee.

Kennedy appealed, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based federal appeals court last year affirmed the lower courts decision. The panel concluded that Bremerton School District (BSD) would have violated the Constitutions prohibition on government endorsement of religion by allowing Kennedy to pray at the conclusion of football games, in the center of the field, with students who felt pressured to join him.

Kennedys attempts to draw nationwide attention to his challenge to BSD compels the conclusion that he was not engaging in private prayer, but was instead engaging in public speech of an overtly religious nature while performing his job duties, the appeals court wrote.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Kennedys appeal on April 25.

View post:
Three cases to watch as Supreme Court readies for final oral arguments of term - The Hill

Special Counsel John Durham continues to drop bombshells in filings in the prosecution of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Just last week, Durham defeated an effort by Sussmann to dismiss the charges. He is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as not technically plausible and user created. He also revealed that at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate in fear that they might incriminate themselves in criminal conduct. Finally, Durham offers further details on the involvement of Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias and former British spy Christopher Steele in the alleged false claims.

The only witness currently immunized by the government, Researcher-2, was conferred with that status on July 28, 2021 over a month prior to the defendants Indictment in this matter. And the Government immunized Researcher-2 because, among other reasons, at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination. The Government therefore pursued Researcher-2s immunity in order to uncover otherwise-unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive-1 and others carried out in advance of the defendants meeting with the FBI.

Durham also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele. Indeed, the new requested immunized testimony would come from a Tech executive who allegedly can share information on meetings with Elias and Steele.

Durham notes that both the CIA and FBI were sent on an effective wild goose chase by the Clinton campaign. He notes that the government found the allegations to be manufactured and not even technically possible. He refers to the CIA in the following passage:

Agency-2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank-1 data and Russian Phone Provider-1 data was not technically plausible, did not withstand technical scrutiny, contained gaps, conflicted with [itself], and was user created and not machine/tool generated.

This dovetails with the statements of the Clinton associates themselves who were worried about the lack of support for the Russian collusion claims. Researcher 1 features prominently in those exchanges.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed tech executive allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed university researchers who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to give the base of a very useful narrative. The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic would poke several holes in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but a red herring, according to the indictment.

Researcher-1 repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Lets assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our best case scenario. You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.

Researcher-1 allegedly further warned, We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?

It appears that the time to regroup has passed with the issuance of immunity deals to compel testimony.

Here is the filing:

US-v-Sussmann-04162022-US-Filing

Like Loading...

Visit link:
Durham: Five Witnesses Connected to the Clinton Campaigns False Russian Claims Have Refused to Cooperate Under the Fifth Amendment - Jonathan Turley