Mediaboss Marketing

By Erik Wasson, Billy House and Steven T. Dennis Bloomberg

House Republicans have dispensed with Jim Jordan as their nominee for the U.S. speakership and now several more are preparing to enter the fray.

The new field began to take shape minutes after the party voted by secret ballot to rescind Trump loyalist Jim Jordans nomination to the leadership post.

Republicans plan to hold another candidate forum on Monday, allowing candidates time over the weekend to mount their campaigns, interim speaker Patrick McHenry said. Another nomination vote would be held as early as Tuesday.

Here are some of the lawmakers expected to try to claim the nomination:

Emmer, the partys third-ranking official, has begun making calls for a speaker bid, according to person familiar with the calls.

He has had a tense relations with some Donald Trump supporters, in part because he voted to certify Joe Bidens 2020 election victory. There also had been some criticism of him for leading the House GOP political arm in 2022, when the party picked up the majority, but a narrower one than expected.

The Oklahoma Republican has been waiting in the wings since former speaker Kevin McCarthys Oct. 3 ouster. He said Friday he would seek the speakership.

Hern, who chairs the 176-member Republican Study Committee, could win over some moderates as a more centrist alternative to Jordan, whose strong-arm tactics have backfired on moderates and more traditional Republicans.

The Florida Republican is a Trump acolyte and member of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus who has served as a surrogate for the former president on the campaign trail. He has described himself as a Trump supporting, liberty loving, pro-life, pro-Second Amendment Black man, and a person who will bring the fight to the swamp creatures.

Donalds forged a plan to keep the government open while cutting domestic spending, which more conservative members rejected.

A spokesman confirmed Friday he is running for speaker.

The House Budget chairman says hes seriously considering a run next week. Even before Jordans nomination was pulled, Arrington was calling colleagues to gauge his support in the fractious party, a Republican official said.

Arrington, who first came to Congress in 2017, has advocated deep cuts in federal spending to bring down budget deficits by $16 trillion over 10 years. Moderates have opposed his proposal and may be reluctant to back him as speaker.

Johnson, a former RSC chairman and a current member of the House GOP leadership team, is making calls to lawmakers about a potential bid, a spokeswoman confirmed.

The Louisiana Republican is a stalwart social conservative and member of Republican leadership team with a reputation for collegiality. He authored a Commitment to Civility pledge when he arrived at the Capitol in 2017 that was also signed by other incoming lawmakers.

The Georgia Republican surprised lawmakers last week when he challenged Jordan for the nomination, receiving 81 votes.

Scott, who served as class president for the Tea Party wave of Republicans elected in 2010, has moderated in approach during his career. He defied Trump when he voted to certify the results of the 2020 election. Scott challenged Jordan for the Republican nomination and said immediately after Jordans nomination was rescinded that he would run again for the job.

The Pennsylvania Republican, who first came to Congress in 2019, told reporters hes weighing a run.

Meuser has styled himself as a small-government congressman with the interest of taxpayers first and foremost, and hes used his experience overseeing Pennsylvanias tax system to push for reduced spending.

The Michigan Republican is a former Marine Corps three-star general and the highest-ranking combat veteran elected to Congress. Bergman, who first came to Congress in 2017, announced his interest in the speakers job earlier this week.

With assistance from Mackenzie Hawkins, Jonathan Tamari and Maeve Sheehey.

More here:
A new field of would-be U.S. House speakers takes shape after Jim ... - The Spokesman Review

On Wednesday (October 18), crime scene investigators were seen at the site close to the A19 looking for the remains of Rania Alayed (Image: NORTHERN ECHO/GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE)

Specialist crime scene investigation teams have begun digging land near the A19 for the remains of a mum of three who was killed ten years ago.

Rania Alayed, 25, died after she was killed byher husband Ahmed Al-Khatib in 2013, with prosecutors saying that he murdered the woman at his brothers flat in Salford, before disposing of her body at the side of the A19.

The body of the Syrian-born mum-of-three has still not been found more than tenyears after she was killed, despite numerous efforts from police to find her remains.

Read more:Desperate search for body of murdered Teesside mother by A19 near Thirsk

Extensive searches have taken place throughout the years, including one on a BBC documentary that looked for answers for Rania's family.

At the time, Al-Khatibsaid he had buried Rania, who moved from Norton in Teesside to Salford in 2013,between trees near the A19 in Thirsk.

On Tuesday (October 17), Greater Manchester Police confirmed that it had been given clearance to dig land near the A19 for the remains ofRania Alayed, following "new information" coming to light.

Rania Alayed (Image: GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE)

A spokesperson for the police force said: We are carrying out a detailed search in relation to recovering the body of Rania Alayed.

"Following new information from a non-recent investigation, GMPs Major Incident Team have been authorised to begin looking at land on the side of the A19 near Thirsk.

Officers will be on location to carry out a thorough search of the area identified and will keep disruption to the local community to a minimum, with no wider risk or threat to the public.

Pictures from the scene on Wednesday (October 18):

"GMP remain committed to finding Rania and will act on all available lines of enquiry when it is possible to do so to help bring some form of closure to her loved ones ten years on.

On Wednesday (October 18), crime scene investigators were seen at the site close to the A19.

Story continues

Get more from The Northern Echo with a Premium Plus digital subscription from as little as only 1.50 a week.Click here.

A lay-by between Thirsk and Northallerton has been cordoned off, while several cars were parked in the lay-by, and a shipping container can be seen at the site.

On Wednesday morning. at least ten officers were at the scene, while a digger could be seen next to a small clearing in some trees on the side of the A19.

Following his wife's murder, Al-Khatibwas sentenced to life with a minimum of 20 years in prison. His brother Muhanned Al-Khatib, of Salford, was found not guilty of murder but had already admitted perverting the course of justice by hiding Rania's body. He was jailed for three years.

Follow this link:
Police pictured digging for the remains of mum of three killed ten years ago - Yahoo News UK

The jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer. -Robert Frost

BENNINGTON Vermonts famous Poet-Laureate might not have been too far off in his tongue-in-cheek comment. Preconceived notions by jurors and expectations on how things should look and work can sometimes muddy the waters of what the reality often is. Pop culture - movies, books, and true crime television - can foster unrealistic expectations of courtroom drama, leaving prosecutors and defense lawyers far short of those preconceptions and adding to the misunderstandings.

Last week in Bennington, the four-day trial of a 51-year-old male accused of sexually assaulting a young child repeatedly for several years ended in a mistrial. The jury made up of three women and nine men were unable to reach a consensus in one direction or the other on the fate of the defendant.

The Banner sat down with one of those jury members and spoke about what happened inside the deliberation room, what evidence made any impact, what the jurors were missing, and what - if anything - could have made a difference.

Wayne Powers, 55, was arrested in 2019, accused of three charges: repeated aggravated sexual assault of a child, sexual assault of a victim under 13, and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child.

According to police affidavits and the live testimony of the alleged victim at last weeks four-day trial, the abuse occurred between 2012 and 2017. It was not reported until 2019 because the child was scared to say anything.

It took five years for the trial to take place. After a four-day trial and four hours of deliberations, the jury sent a note informing the judge they were hopelessly deadlocked.

John Clift, 76, a first-time juror from Manchester, was one of those jurors. He reached out to us after the mistrial to talk about what happened.

This was one of the more disappointing things I've ever experienced, Clift said. It was poorly run by both attorneys. I wouldn't want them to advise me about how to tie a shoe.

Clift told us the main issue for him and several other jurors was not the testimony, or evidence - but the presentation of their message and the delivery of said evidence. That, he told us, made a big difference.

I thought that the attorneys were just horrible, Clift said. The prosecuting attorney was mild-mannered. I'm sure he's a nice man. I assume he's knowledgeable of the law, but there was no commitment or display of passion.

"Presentation goes a long way in all situations. And I thought his presentation and his demeanor and so forth was horrible. The defense attorney was slightly better, but it was much referring to notes without any flow, no effective storytelling. No compassion for the case.

We definitely deal with this all the time, said Bennington County State's Attorney Erica Marthage, when told of Clift's comments. The popularity of true crime shows, you know, started with shows like CSI (Crime Scene Investigation)."

Marthage said the reality is that the overwhelming number of cases they deal with, particularly violent crimes, have very few independent witnesses. And they typically have very little science-based evidence.

We talk about it in training new attorneys, Marthage said. It's very difficult to overcome what people expect they're going to see when they walk into a courtroom because it's been dramatized on television for so many years.

When asked what was going through his mind during the presentation of evidence, Clift said he thought the witnesses were "okay," maybe a 3 or 4 out of 10, but that the whole case lacked any passion. He went into the deliberations unsure of guilt or innocence. Clift said the jurors took an initial vote right after getting the case. That first vote was 7-5 in favor of acquittal.

I thought everything was pretty good. I mean, there were lots of intelligent people in that room. People wanted to be sure.

He said the only contentiousness came regarding the grandmothers testimony, with one person in particular becoming very outspoken about her.

He told us that the grandmother could not be trusted, that he knew her or something like that, not personally, but he knew of her and had heard various things.

Clift said after that first vote, they deliberated for about an hour back and forth and then had another vote which leaned more toward an acquittal, 10-2, with two people holding out.

The jury then requested to review the taped interview of the then-7-year-old victim. After the jury saw the video for the second time, another vote was taken. This time, it was 8-4 in favor of acquittal. At that point, Clift felt the jury was deadlocked and that no one was going to change their mind. When asked if he feels the jury gave it enough time to reach a verdict, Clift said a definite Yes.

My attitude at that point is, I think what's best for this young boy is that there is a mistrial. Hopefully, a second shot at this brings more evidence that can be collected, and a better job can be done. I just thought the whole thing with the lawyers was so bad. I just thought these guys were incompetent.

"My overall opinion was, 'This is just ridiculous. Nobody on either side is really being represented.' It was such a lack of evidence. The guy could be completely innocent. A person's life is at stake. Both lives are going to be imperiled by whatever the result is. It was a horrible situation. The presentation of that evidence is critical because we don't know, right?

This has been a horrible experience because of the two lawyers, Clift said. I just think the system that produces this kind of expertise in this critical situation with lives involved was horrible. On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a minus three. They were both poorly represented and deserve much better treatment on behalf of the system.

"If this actually happened, it's horrible for the young boy. Hes got to live with that for the rest of his life. If Mr. Powers is innocent, I mean, how horrible is that? I feel empathy for both sides, because it was so poorly handled, in my opinion. I just didn't feel anything from them (the lawyers). It just wasn't a passionate argument. It was a little detached. Thats a shame.

Marthage says there is variability in how attorneys present their cases, but Hollywood-esque histrionics shouldn't replace simple presentation of facts to the jury.

Everyone has a different trial demeanor, Marthage said. We are supposed to bring trial cases on the evidence and the information we're presenting. Some trial attorneys are more passionate in their presentation than others. Frequently, that can get in the way of a fair and just trial. The cases that end up being appealed or end up being post-conviction relief cases are the ones where you have an attorney that's essentially like someone you would see on TV.

Marthage cited the Leonard Forte case, also involving the sexual assault of a minor, as a good example.

The trial judge overturned Forte's conviction because he said that the prosecutor cried and was 'overly emotional.' It's our job to present the facts and only the facts. At the end of the day. It's about the facts. The fact is people expect these things. This is what we're dealing with. It's frustrating. A lot of time and energy went into presenting that trial. Everybody presents things differently.

"This is a tough topic: child sexual abuse. It's one of those that you're not going to have physical evidence in many of these cases. Often, its just the statements of the victim. That is the evidence. That's a matter of law, and that's something that is very difficult to overcome when we have everyone that watches too much TV and listens to True Crime podcasts.

For now, Powers is a free man. Prosecutor Alexander Burke told the Banner soon after the trial ended that he intended to re-try the case, but there is never a guarantee that a new trial will happen. Witnesses sometimes change their minds or refuse to testify, stories can change, defendants may pass, and evidence can fade with time and memory. There is also no guarantee that given time, there will be any different result.

See the original post here:
Inside the jury room of a recent child sexual assault trial What ... - Bennington Banner

This past Independence Day, a U.S. federal judge in Missouri v. Biden found that the Biden Administration violated Americans' First Amendment rights in urging social media companies to censor opinions. It also found that the Administration had funded universities and non-governmental organizations to create a veritable hit list of censorship, which it used to tell social media companies which people and ideas to deboost and censor.

Citing the need to censor speech as the only way to protect the American public, the Biden Administration told the court that it is too dangerous to apply the First Amendment to social media posts, given the depredations of sorting through misinformation from foreign states, political actors, or cranks.

The court was not impressed, and issued a preliminary injunction telling the Biden Administration it could no longer coerce Facebook, Twitter/X, and the like to censor users, because doing so violated the First Amendment. Under the order, the Administration also could not engage third parties to craft its censorship agenda. The court excoriated the Biden Administration for establishing an "Orwellian Ministry of Truth" in its zeal for censorship.

On appeal, a district court reinforced the first part of the injunction against the Administrationthat it cannot coerce social media censorshipbut failed to prohibit the second. As things stand, the Administration can still engage non-governmental actors to target people and ideas for censorship in the name of identifying "misinformation" online. The case currently sits at the Supreme Court, but more important than any judicial orders and opinions is the information unearthed during discovery.

Evidence revealed that employees at a dozen Federal government agencies and the Biden White House directly pressured social media companies to censor viewpoints it found contrary to the official narrative it pushed to the American people. Depositions of high-ranking career staff and political employees and unearthed emails between the government and social media companies like Facebook and Twitter/X revealed the government's tactics to suppress speech. The Surgeon General's office, the FBI, the CDC, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House itself were all closely involved.

Emails from the White House to Facebook show government officials threatening to use regulatory power to harm social media companies that did not comply with censorship demands.

Government agencies funded universities and NGOs to support enterprises with Orwellian names like "Virality Project" and "Center for Countering Digital Hate" to create a target list for the Administration's censorship efforts. With government backing, these entitieslinked sometimes to prominent universities like Stanford and the University of Washingtonwork with corporate teams in social media companies' "trust and safety" divisions to censor offending speech.

The problem is that the government and these entities are bad at identifying misinformation, and they have a predilection for censoring people and ideas that are critical of government policy, whether those criticisms are true or false.

Take, for instance, the censorship of COVID science. According to court documents found during discovery, the Biden administration insisted on censoring and deboosting content that accurately pointed out the rapidly waning efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine against infections, which they used to justify executive orders imposing vaccine mandates.

The Virality Project issued a report identifying particular people they deemed responsible for a substantial portion of "vaccine mis-and disinformation" online. The Project received tips from the public and government "stakeholders" to construct its hitlist for censorship, which it conveyed to social media companies. In essence, the Virality Project served as a proxy for the government to exert its influence over Big Tech and suppress speech.

The Biden White House pressured Facebook to censor vaccine discussions, such as groups of vaccine-injured patients, that did not violate Facebook's community standards. In response to harsh communications from Biden COVID advisor Andy Slavitt in 2021, Facebook limited the reach of these groups and censored them.

Ironically, even the White House itself was caught by its censorship demands. At the Biden administration's behest, Facebook implemented algorithms to suppress posts their computers deemed "anti-vax." In April 2021, when the CDC issued a "pause" on the distribution of the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine because it had identified an elevated level of strokes in women, the Facebook algorithms tagged the White House account as an anti-vax account. The Administration angrily ordered Facebook to stop censoring its speech.

While we await the Supreme Court to decide whether it will endorse the injunction against the Administration's strong-arming of social media to endorse its censorship demands and restore the First Amendment to the US, Congress should act to dismantle the Administration's plainly unconstitutional Ministry of Truth.

Since the appellate courts seem reluctant to restrict the Administration from funding outside organizations to set its censorship agenda, Congress should use its power to cut the funding to the various agencies for these purposes. After a new House speaker is elected and budget negotiations begin anew, budget allocations for censorship would be an excellent target for spending cuts that every American elected official should be ashamed not to back.

Censorship violates the American civic religion. The Biden Administration and every elected official should remember that they all swore an oath to abide by the Constitution, which protects free speech. And if they cannot remember, voters should repeatedly remind them of that fact until they do.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, is a Professor of Health Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine, a founding fellow of Hillsdale College's Academy of Science and Freedom, and a plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case.

Joe Grogan, JD, is a Senior Fellow at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center. Previously, he served as Assistant to President Donald J. Trump, as Director of the Domestic Policy Council, and as Associate Director for Health Programs at the Office of Management and Budget.

The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

See the article here:
The Biden Administration Is Waging War on the First Amendment - Newsweek

On Tuesday, D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, following a hearing on Monday, issued in writing a partial gag order in Donald Trumps Jan. 6 prosecution.

She prohibited all parties or counsel in the case from making

any public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this courts staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.

In doing so, she sent three unmistakable messages to defendant Trump and the country: She is firmly committed to the orderly administration of justice; her commitment is fueled by fearlessness; and no one is above the law.

The order is elegant. She grounded the order in long-standing Supreme Court law that a trial court has a duty to protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences and that [t]he First Amendment does not override that obligation. Then, she carefully focused on conduct by Trump that could reasonably be expected to increase the risk of violence to anyone in his trial processwitnesses, prosecutors, and court staff.

That alone raises the guardrail against appellate reversal on First Amendment grounds, even by this Supreme Court. In addition, she reinforced the legal permanency of the order by adding:

This Order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements criticizing the government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice; statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of Defendants current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence.

The judge notably avoided saying how shed respond to comments about herself, having reportedly suggested earlier in Mondays hearing that she wasnt too concerned about her own safety.

What matters to the country and the administration of justice is that Chutkan refused to simply take a one-small-step-at-a-time approach. With Trumps increasingly violent social postings about witnesses, the judge recognized that halfway measures risk a danger to our justice systemand real world threats of violence often follow Trumps pronouncements in short order.

The threats are not hypothetical. In August, Abigail Shry, a Trump follower, was arrested for a voicemail death threat to the judge.

Last month, Trump brazenly declared that in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH for now-retired Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley. Why? Because Milley dared to have a relatively standard back channel de-confliction conversation with the Chinese military at a time of world crisis. And Milley happens to be a key witness against Trump.

For Chutkan, the risk of simply giving Trump an escalated general warning was twofold. First, it would give Trump another one or two free strikes until she issued a formal written order. Second, the judiciary would lose authority if it looked ineffectual to the public.

Of course, now comes the hard part. As weve written before, Trump, by his nature and his political strategy, will feel compelled to test the limits of the order that the judge ultimately issues. In fact, hes already testing those limits. On Tuesday in Iowa, Trump rallied supporters against Chutkan, saying the judge doesnt like me too much. He added, I am willing to go to jail if thats what it takes.

Trump has already filed his notice of appeal. It will not delay the trial.

A reactionary Supreme Court majority lurks in the background. They might well relish issuing a high-minded opinion waxing poetic on First Amendment principles that they will apply (or misapply) in favor of the leading Republican candidate for president. At the same time, in recent cases, the justices have seemed to be fed up with Trumps petitions for special treatment.

In addition to clearly underscoring the areas where Trump may properly speak, Chutkan did several important things to avoid reversal.

First, her order did not include words proposed by special counsel Jack Smith that would forbid inflammatory or disparaging speech about witnesses or court personnel. An order worded too vaguely could be viewed as chilling speech that is protected as well as that which is not. As recently as June, both liberal and conservative justices warned against such a chilling effect.

Second, the order included crucial context for its central prohibition on targeting. Chutkan cited undisputed testimony showing that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed. She cited in particular Trumps recent public statements that particular individuals are liars, or thugs, or deserve death.

On that basis, the court concluded that such statements pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2) attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and harassment.

Finally, Chutkan made an undeniable point about why even social posts that are quickly deleted would violate the order: She noted that the significant and immediate risk she cited is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet once an individual is publicly targeted.

These findings matter because higher courts do not lightly disturb a district courts determination of undisputed facts. She found that Defendants statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means and the order has been tailored to meet the force of those threats. The quoted language is aimed at the Supreme Courts requirement that restrictions on speech to protect judicial proceedings be contoured no more broadly than required to meet the threat.

Perhaps most importantly, the court moored the order in the safest harbor availableforbidding targeting anyone associated with the case from issuing what the Supreme Court has called true threats of violence. True threats are defined as words that subject individuals to fear of violence and to the many kinds of disruption that fear engenders.

As recently as June, the Supreme Court ruled that such words are not protected by the First Amendment.

Even with a carefully worded order, it is predictable what Trump will do and why. His attacks on prosecutors and courts become fodder for his political fundraising.

Trumps attacks also nourish his single-minded strategy: He appears not to worry about jeopardizing his defenses in criminal cases by ranting and by defying judges. Instead, he aims everything at energizing his electoral base to donate and turn out at the polls. He views this as his path to regain the presidency, arrange for his attorney general to end his prosecutions, and possibly to pardon himself.

Given Trumps pattern of aggressive public counterattacks to any judicial restrictionsor even application of standard judicial ruleshe will surely walk right up to the line or over it to demonstrate his defiance.

The more extreme and provocative his imagery, the more obvious it will be that Trump is violating the gag order.

On the other side of the criminal case, special counsel Jack Smith will not hesitate to move to hold Trump in contempt if he ventures over the line.

In response, Chutkan will have an array of options. She could give Trump a last warning before imposing sanctions. Or, following Mondays pattern, she could issue an immediate order for him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

This would trigger briefing by the parties, and then a contempt hearinga minitrial on the sole issue of whether the gag order has been violated in any material manner.

The hearing would turn on prosecution evidence that the very nature of Trumps statements is an invitation and provocation to violence.

In that event, if the facts were to support a contempt finding by a preponderance of the evidence, the court should carefully calibrate a remedy that would send a major deterrent message to Trumpand to the countryabout the rule of law. Stiff monetary fines, doubling with any further violations, are one example.

Whatever the course of coming events in Chutkans courtroom, heres what we can count on: She is not one to be intimidatedor to slow rulings that demonstrate that no one is above the law.

Read more:
Gag order against Trump will withstand First Amendment claim. - Slate