Mediaboss Marketing

As the GOP lurches toward authoritarianism, one of its key tactics is to suppress free thinking. What better place to start that effort than in the schools (and by extension school libraries)? Its no surprise that schools have emerged as one of the key battlegrounds in the culture war.

But whats less noticed is that in branding itself the education party, the GOP is actually the ignorance party. Republicans constant attacks on bogus controversies like critical race theory are just an excuse to dumb down the school curriculum. Thats because Republicans believe that schools are where children should be taught how to become Republicans if they are taught anything at all.

Two things are happening as Republicans go after schools. One is to focus on public schools and make sure that students learn a right-wing version of history. That involves eliminating groups that the right doesnt like, like LGBTQ people. Floridas Dont Say Gay bill is an obvious example of erasing the visibility of non-approved groups from schools.

Then there are the bills that protect the tender emotions of white students. These so-called divisive concepts laws prohibit any discussion of race in the classroom that could cause students to feel anguish, guilt or any other form of discomfort or stress. In short, the bills are meant to denature history so that the ongoing quest for civil rights in the U.S. effectively ends with the Civil War.

Not content to remove current events and history from schools, Republicans have gone after other subjects as well. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) called for the removal of 54 math books because he claimed that they somehow slipped critical race theory into the multiplication tables.

Absent from any of this discussion is anything about academic standards or, you know, actually making students smarter. Theres a good reason for that. What Republicans are interested in isnt making students smarter, its making them more Republican. Apparently, the way to do that is to keep them as ignorant as possible.

Thats where the second part of the plan comes in. Republicans have been pushing hard for school choice, which would use taxpayer money to fund private schools. This effort got a big boost fromyou guessed itthe Supreme Court, which ruled in its last session that two anti-LGBTQ Christian schools in Maine were entitled to receive state funding.

As those schools proved, the curricula are not designed to educate but to indoctrinate. School choice options, like religious schools and, worse still, home schools, can be as political as they want. Indeed, a leading figure on the rightCharlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USAhas started a chain of anti-woke academies based on bedrock principles that sound a lot like Trumpism.

Kirk has the perfect credentials for the job. He never went to college.

Here is the original post:
Republicans think keeping kids as ignorant as possible is the key to academic excellence - LGBTQ Nation

Sen. Lindsey Graham is facing quite a bit of criticism over his riots in the streets rhetoric, and for good reason: The South Carolina Republicans on-air comments about Donald Trumps followers turning to violence in the event of a possible indictment were indefensible.

There was, however, a key detail that shouldnt go overlooked. Graham didnt just seem to justify prospective violence, the longtime GOP lawmaker also went into some detail about the basis for the perceived injustice. If they try to prosecute President Trump for mishandling classified information after Hillary Clinton set up a server in her basement, the senator told Fox News, there literally will be riots in the street.

Yesterday morning, Republican Sen. John Cornyn wasnt nearly as reckless, though the Texan published a tweet touting the underlying partisan principle:

Democrats and the FBI created the Hillary Clinton standard for non-prosecution of mishandling classified information. Will Donald Trump be held to a different standard?

Cornyn was referencing a Wall Street Journal editorial, published yesterday, pushing the idea.

For those who dont care about factual details, this framing may very well have superficial appeal: Clinton was accused of mishandling sensitive materials; Trump was accused of mishandling sensitive materials. She wasnt indicted, so therefore, he shouldnt be indicted. If the two are held to different standards, at least according to Graham, the Republicans most radical followers will feel justified in lashing out with literal societal violence.

The problem emerges when grown-ups bother to look beyond the surface and notice that the allegations surrounding Clinton and Trump arent especially similar.

Clintons email protocols were, of course, the subject of a lengthy criminal probe. Federal investigators appeared eager to find evidence of wrongdoing: then-FBI Director James Comey privately marveled at the visceral hatred some senior FBI officials in New York had for the former secretary of state.

But federal law enforcement nevertheless didnt charge the Democrat with any crimes because they couldnt find evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Comey took the extraordinary step of publicly criticizing Clinton anyway, but he grudgingly conceded that the FBI, following an exhaustive investigation, couldnt indict her.

Trumps State Department similarly conceded late on a Friday afternoon that there was no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information from Clinton. The inspector generals office in Trumps Justice Department also concluded that the FBI had no reason to charge Clinton.

Trumps scandal bears little resemblance to his former rivals. Clinton didnt take physical documents. She didnt ignore pleas for cooperation. She didnt store highly sensitive secrets at a private club that had an unfortunate habit of letting foreign spies walk around.

To be sure, its possible that federal investigators will examine Trumps alleged misconduct and come to a similar conclusion. Maybe the former president will be exonerated. Maybe it only appears that he committed a variety of felonies by bringing classified secrets to his glorified country club and refusing to give them back.

But, on the other hand, if prosecutors conclude that the Republican deserves to be indicted, it wont be because of a double standard. It will be because the evidence proved that he broke the law.

Chances are, Graham, Cornyn, and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal understand this. Its what makes their faux confusion that much more ridiculous.

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."

Original post:
What Republicans refuse to grasp about the Clinton standard - MSNBC

As a lawyer for the past 40 years, it troubles me the way our freedoms are being slowly eroded by the actions of our government and agencies. The Fourth Amendment was set in place to protect people from the intrusion of government into their homes and lives without some serious oversight by the courts. Before we became independent from British rule, it was common for the agents of the King to storm into homes in search of subjects whose thoughts and actions may have been contrary to the best interests of the Crown. I thought the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solved that problem and gave us back the peace of mind to be free from the troublesome intrusion of law enforcement agents.

Recent events have shown how nave I had become in the comforting words of the Fourth Amendment, and its assurances that I would be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. How dare the FBI raid the home of our former commander in chief on only the affidavit of sworn law enforcement officers and the scrutiny of a federal judge! Does this set a precedent that means anyone who evades taxes, attempts to undermine an election, sexually assaults women, manipulates the value of their assets to reduce taxes, aides and abets the overthrow of our democracy and its election system, and illegally steals top secret documents, will be subject to investigation? Is that what we have become as a country? Who knows what could happen next if this form of police overreach is allowed to exist. Our courts and jails could be flooded with a glut of politicians and their cronies and enablers.

We could suddenly find ourselves in the cross-hairs of a search warrant after having stolen corporate secrets from our employers, or simply embezzled money. Who wants to be under the gun from police just because they keep their drug stash at home instead of in a warehouse. This opens the door to all kinds of unreasonable law enforcement actions for drug searches, espionage, illegal possession of firearms, tax evasion, harboring criminals, exploitation of illegal aliens the list goes on. Personally, I dont want to wake up some day and discover that I could be held accountable for keeping nuclear secrets in my locked gun cabinet. Wake up, America, and stand up for your rights!

Chuck McMurryCarp Lake

Read the original here:
Letter: Could any of us now be subjected to the 4th Amendment and all it entails? - Cheboygan Daily Tribune

Left: attorney John Pierce, during an interview with Tucker Carlson; right, Lloyd Casimiro Cruz, Jr., inside the Capitol on Jan. 6.

A high-profile lawyer defending multiple people accused in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol says that the federal search warrants used to trace one of his clients to the building are unconstitutional and that the case against his client should be dismissed.

The motion falls days after a similar Fourth Amendment challenge failed in a separate case related to the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

John Pierce, in a motion filed Saturday on behalf of client Lloyd Casimiro Cruz, Jr., argues that any evidence obtained from the search warrants that the FBI obtained on the day of the attack is so-called fruit from the poisonous tree so poisonous, the legal theory goes, that it cannot constitutionally be used in a criminal prosecution.

Cruz, who is from Missouri, is accused of joining the mob of Donald Trump supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Prosecutors say he drove with friends to Washington on Jan. 3 to attend Trumps so-called Stop the Steal rally, during which Trump exhorted the crowd to march to the Capitol as Congress certified Joe Bidens win in the 2020 presidential election, a constitutionally-mandated process that marks the peaceful transition of power from one U.S. presidential administration to the next. The riotous crowd ultimately overwhelmed police, grinding the certification to a temporary halt and forcing lawmakers and staff to either leave the building or shelter in place.

According to court documents, Cruz told federal investigators that he recorded some of the destruction and chaos at the Capitol that day using a GoPro camera, which he later shared with investigators. Cruz faces four trespassing and disorderly conduct charges that have come to be known as the standard misdemeanors in Jan. 6 cases. Penalties range from six months to one year in jail if convicted.

The FBI ultimately tracked Cruz down through location data obtained from AT&T and Google through search warrants obtained on Jan. 6.

Per the FBI statement of facts in support of the probable cause warrant for Cruz:

According to records obtained through a search warrant for records in the possession of Google, a mobile device associated with I**********@g****.com was present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Google estimates device location using sources including GPS data and information about nearby Wi-Fi access points and Bluetooth beacons. This location data varies in its accuracy, depending on the source(s) of the data. As a result, Google assigns a maps display radius for each location data point. Thus, where Google estimates that its location data is accurate to within 10 meters, Google assigns a maps display radius of 10 meters to the location data point. Finally, Google reports that its maps display radius reflects the actual location of the covered device approximately 68% of the time. In this case, Google location data showed that a device associated with l**********@g****.com was within the U.S. Capitol Crypt at 2:17:27 p.m. on January 6, 2021. Google records showed that the maps display radius for this location data was less than 100 feet, which encompasses an area that is partially within the U.S. Capitol building. Google reported a recovery telephone number ending in 5584 for l**********@g****.com.

According to records obtained through a search warrant for records in the possession of AT&T, on January 6, 2021, in and around the time of the incident, the cellphone associated with a telephone number ending in 5584 was identified as having utilized a cell site consistent with providing service to a geographic area that included the interior of the United States Capitol building.

Login Internet Protocol (IP) address information provided by Google, and research in public records, were used to identify LLOYD CASIMIRO CRUZ, JR., residing in Polo, Missouri, as the subscriber of telephone number ending in 5584. I was requested to conduct logical investigation to identify the individual in possession of the referenced device within the U.S. Capitol building, and to conduct investigation to identify potential criminal offenses that were committed, on January 6, 2021.

In the probable cause affidavit, the FBI agent who interviewed Cruz said that the defendant shared a picture with him that apparently places him inside the Capitol building at the time of the riot.

Cruz stated he observed himself on surveillance footage from inside the U.S. Capitol building posted on One America News Networks website, the FBI affidavit says. Cruz took a screen shot of this image on this website with his cell phone. I took [a] photograph of this screen shot[.]

The AT&T and Google search warrants that led to the FBIs investigation and, ultimately, Cruzs arrest, Pierce argues, were illegal, and any evidence derived from those search warrants violates his clients constitutional rights.

[T]he entire complaint against the Defendant originated with an unlawful blanket general warrant of cellphone location data, which plainly lacked requisite specificity, Pierce writes in his motion, filed Saturday. Investigators then used such metadata to identify Cruz, rather than first having probable cause to identify Cruz and probable cause to believe Mr. Cruz had committed an offense, as required by the 4th amendment [sic].

Investigators then tracked down Cruz and obtained statements from him, as well as other evidence, Pierce continued. All of this evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree. Accordingly, this case must be dismissed en toto [emphasis in original, using the Latin phrase for in its entirety].

According to Pierce, the timeline of the FBIs investigation supports his claim:

1. The FBI began its investigation into (later to be identified) Cruz, without any probable cause to suspect Cruz of any crime;

2. The FBI used two blanket general warrants (of both Google and AT&T) to scour through cell phone and other digital metadata to then identify Cruz as a potential suspect crime (although what crimes, if any, the FBI did not know);

3. Even after identifying Cruz as a potential suspect via these general warrants, the FBI lacked probable cause to arrest him for any specific crime;

4. The FBI then flew to Missouri to question Cruz to determine if there was any probable cause to charge Cruz with a crime or crimes; and

5. Only upon questioning Cruz and getting Cruz to provide other evidence did the FBI have probable cause to charge Cruz with any crime (two misdemeanors).

Pierce, who is known for representing right-wing causes clbres including, before he was fired from the defense team, acquitted Kenosha protest gunman Kyle Rittenhouse and the very image of the riot Jacob Chansley describes the FBIs search warrant in dramatic fashion, implying that something significantly more nefarious is afoot.

The warrants in this case plainly lacked probable cause with any particularity regarding the person and things to be searched or even the crimes to be alleged, Pierce writes. Indeed, it is plain that this case was initiated by one of the worst general warrants in American history. Counsel suspects that there may be other January 6 defendants who were similarly identified by these general warrants and asks the Court to utilize its inherent powers to open a more wide-ranging inquiry into the FBIs use of these unconstitutional warrants.

Pierce also asks to put the agents involved in the warrants to answer questions under oath.

Cruz requests an evidentiary hearing in which all agents responsible for these warrants shall be made to appear, testify, and provide all supporting affidavits and/or documentation, Pierce writes, emphasizing this request in all-bold typeface.

Pierces motion comes days after a ruling from the Chief U.S. District Judge denying another Jan. 6 defendants request to suppress evidence on similar grounds. On Thursday, Beryl Howell, a Barack Obama appointee, denied Matthew Bledsoes motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, finding that Bledsoe who prosecutors say live-streamed extensively from the Capitol that day did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy location data that Facebook ultimately provided to the FBI.

Cruzs case is before Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, a George W. Bush appointee. It is unclear when he will rule on the motion; a status conference in the case is set for Tuesday.

The recent filing of two motions seeking to either suppress or dismiss charges on Fourth Amendment search and seizure grounds may signal yet another coming fight in Jan. 6 cases in which judges could reach a variety of conclusions. Previously, several defense attorneys in Jan. 6 cases have filed motions to dismiss a particular federal obstruction charge levied against many accused rioters, and most but not all D.C. District judges have rejected these efforts.

The judges are less aligned when it comes to the issue of so-called split sentences efforts by federal prosecutors to have defendants convicted of certain Jan. 6 misdemeanors serve both jail time and probation. Some judges have said that such sentences are allowed, but others have disagreed, leaving a split on the bench.

The DOJ declined to comment about Pierces motion to Law&Crime.

Read the motion, below:

[Image of John Pierce via screengrab; image of Lloyd Casimiro Cruz, Jr., via FBI court filing.]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Here is the original post:
Conservative Lawyer Who Formerly Represented Kyle Rittenhouse Tees Up Potential Fourth Amendment Issue in Jan. 6 Case - Law & Crime

Former President Donald Trumps lawyer said Tuesday that the 45th president will attempt to challenge the legality of the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago based on his Fourth Amendment rights.

In terms of what we do in the future, you know, theres this Fourth Amendment like you brought up, theres a fourth amendment issue here; the warrant was way too broad, Trump attorney Alina Habba told Fox News on Tuesday night.

Habba then pointed to the judge in the case,U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump in 2020. Cannon is not the same judgeU.S. magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhartwho signed off on the FBI warrant.

Last week, Cannon signaled in a court filing that she will likely sign off on appointing a special master to review documents that were taken from Mar-a-Lago. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers said this week that a filter team has already looked into the documents and added that what appears to be attorney-client privileged information was taken.

We do have judge Cannon, whos the federal judge thats taken up this case, Habba said. Theres a hearing on Thursday. I think that that will be giving us some judicial oversight that is much needed at this point.

So at this point, I think the best thing weve done is weve gotten a judge in place who does look like theyre going to be active, Habba said, adding that soon, we do need to move forward with filing to invalidate the warrants due to Fourth Amendment issues.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy and protectsindividuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

But we dont have all the information yet. We still dont even have a completely unredacted affidavit. They wont share it with the legal team, let alone the public seems to know more than we do, Habba added. So its a problem. And I think that the FBI is going to have major problems.

The affidavit, which DOJ officials sought to block from being released, was ordered unsealed by Reinhart last week, although it was significantly redacted. Few new details were provided, although it stated the DOJ has probable cause to believe that allegedly classified documents and materials were being kept at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump, meanwhile, has said he declassified the materials at Mar-a-Lago, pointing to an executive order and statements he made in late 2020 and early 2021 when he was still in office. A day before departing the White House, Trump signed an order to declassify some FBI Crossfire Hurricane materials.

Follow

Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York.

See the original post:
Trump Lawyer Reveals What Argument Former President Will Make in Court - The Epoch Times