Mediaboss Marketing

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection which occurred a year ago this week is reportedly planning televised hearings in the coming months to share what its learned from the over 300 witnesses and tens of thousands of documents consulted thus far. Rep. Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyMyPillow CEO Mike Lindell sues Jan. 6 panel over subpoena for phone records Overnight Defense & National Security Nation marks 1 year since Capitol riot GOP attempts balancing act: Condemn Jan. 6, but not Trump MORE (R-Wyo.) herself an experienced lawyer and vice chair of the committee has signaled that evidence is mounting that former President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpPelosi on eve of Jan. 6: Capitol rioters 'lost' bid to stop peaceful transfer of power MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell sues Jan. 6 panel over subpoena for phone records Bipartisan Senate group holds call on elections amid reform chatter MORE might be guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding, which is a federal felony that can trigger up to 20 years in prison.

Theres no established legal or historical path from a congressional investigation to a criminal trial of a former president and for good reason. Presidents are special, and they enjoy numerous special privileges of the office. During the Trump years, debate swirled around the concept of executive privilege, and whether his status as president would immunize him from liability for actions taken both before and during his presidency. As the work of the select committee heats up, executive privilege could again loom large as has already been the case with the snubbing of subpoenas by former Trump adviser Steve BannonStephen (Steve) Kevin BannonGarland vows prosecutions 'at any level' over Jan. 6 Trump adviser Navarro: Rioters on Jan. 6 hurt plan to challenge election result Jan. 6: Five reasons Trump cannot hide behind executive privilege MORE and chief of staff Mark MeadowsMark MeadowsMyPillow CEO Mike Lindell sues Jan. 6 panel over subpoena for phone records Garland vows prosecutions 'at any level' over Jan. 6 Gorka sues Jan. 6 committee over phone records subpoena MORE.

Here are five reasons why an attempt by Trump to hide behind executive privilege regarding Jan. 6 should probably fail.

1. President Joe BidenJoe BidenPelosi on eve of Jan. 6: Capitol rioters 'lost' bid to stop peaceful transfer of power MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell sues Jan. 6 panel over subpoena for phone records Overnight Defense & National Security Nation marks 1 year since Capitol riot MOREs decision not to invoke executive privilege on Trumps behalf is likely fatal to any competing claim by Trump. With respect to the protection of military and state secrets, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953 stated in United States v. Reynolds that the privilege belongs to the Government, and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed nor waived by a private party (which is Trumps status now). It is not to be lightly invoked, the court explained. There must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer. No such formal claim has been lodged by Biden or Trump, for that matter in connection with Jan. 6.

Trump did initiate litigation over whether his assertion of executive privilege would supersede Bidens contrary decision under the Presidential Records Act for purposes of determining whether the select committee sees archived White House documents. But Trump roundly lost that bid in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Even if he succeeds in persuading the Supreme Court to take and reverse that case, a favorable ruling regarding archived records under the language of the Presidential Records Act would not necessarily protect Trump from a congressional or judicial subpoena for testimony. Theres only one president at a time under the Constitution, and in this moment, its Biden.

2. Executive privilege does not offer blanket immunity from legal process. Like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege does not operate to immunize an individual from having to provide any and all testimony or records pursuant to a lawful subpoena. It only allows a recipients lawyer, during an interview, to lodge objections question-by-question and direct the witness not to answer those questions that call for privileged information. Former President Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonJan. 6: Five reasons Trump cannot hide behind executive privilege To save America, we need a council of presidents Jan. 6 is the GOP's fault line MORE testified in the Monica Lewinsky investigation under Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, for example, even though he was the sitting president of the United States.

In this way, executive privilege is not unlike the much weightier Fifth Amendment ban on self-incrimination, which likewise anticipates that witnesses will show up for testimony and answer certain questions by invoking the Fifth rather than authorizing a blanket refusal to appear altogether. This is precisely why the Justice Department saw fit to indict Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress. He refused even to appear before the committee on grounds of executive privilege, which was not his right even if it had been formally invoked by the president.

3. Executive privilege did not protect President Richard Nixon from having to produce his Oval Office tapes in response to a subpoena on the theory that the public interest in knowing the truth outweighed his interest in secrecy. Information bearing on a bloody insurrection hardly warrants greater protection than the Watergate tapes that led to the untimely end of Nixons term in office. In United States v. Nixon, a unanimous Supreme Court explained in 1974: Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality at high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.

In short, executive privilege can be outweighed by other public interests and Congresss interest in investigating Jan. 6 may be one of them.

Indeed, in its 2020 decision in Trump v. Mazars, even the modern conservative-leaning court refused to extend executive privilege beyond its existing boundaries to protect Trumps private financial records from disclosure to a grand jury. This round, Trump shouldnt get greater protections than Nixon did, either.

4. Even if executive privilege applied to Trumps communications around Jan. 6, it may have already been waived. There arent a lot of cases discussing executive privilege. But there is a lot of law applying the related concept of attorney-client privilege. The rationale behind both is similar: Its good for presidents to have confidential communications regarding issues of national importance and for clients to have confidential communications with their lawyers about legal issues. If such communications were easily made public, people wouldnt have them to begin with, and the quality of the privilege holders decision-making would suffer.

But if a client allows a friend to listen in on a conversation with a lawyer, theres no reason to keep it confidential anymore. The inclusion of a third party is known as a waiver. In some jurisdictions, a waiver extends to the entire subject matter of the communication not just the actual statements overheard. Its been reported that Meadows already put some of what he discussed with Trump that day in his forthcoming book. If thats true, a court might deem any privilege around those conversations waived.

5. The attorney-client privilege has an exception for communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud. So stoking an insurrection to interfere with the peaceful transfer of presidential power should qualify for purposes of executive privilege, too. A client cant obtain a lawyers advice on where to bury a body and then hide behind the attorney-client privilege if asked about that conversation. The need for airing of evidence of a crime outweighs the clients need for confidentiality. The same exception should extend to communications with a president regarding an attempted overthrow of a legitimate election.

What many people dont seem to understand about executive privilege is that its not an insurmountable barrier to the publics right to know about presidential communications. Its merely a policy gloss on presidential prerogatives that appears nowhere in the actual Constitution. It is accordingly fickle. It is not a right, but a privilege that courts have extended to presidents out of respect for the office. Presidents who fail to show reciprocal respect for the office arguably forfeit access to its privileges.

Kimberly Wehleis a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and author of How to Read the Constitution and Why, as well as What You Need to Know About Voting and WhyandHow to Think Like a Lawyer and Why (forthcoming February 2022). Follow her on Twitter:@kimwehle

Read the original:
Jan. 6: Five reasons Trump cannot hide behind executive privilege | TheHill - The Hill

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On December 29, 2021, Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. (the "Company") executed aSixth Amendment to Loan Agreement and a Fifth Amendment to Security Agreement, aNote Modification Agreement, and an Addendum to Promissory Note (together the"Amended Credit Facility") with Truist Bank (the "Lender"). The Amended CreditFacility extends the $20 million line of credit with Lender, originally enteredinto on September 28, 2017 (the "Credit Line"), until April 15, 2023.

Borrowings under the Amended Credit Facility will be used for general corporatepurposes and will bear interest at a rate equal to the Secured OvernightFinancing Rate (SOFR) plus 1.56%, with a SOFR floor of 0.75%. The Company willmake monthly payments of accrued interest with the final monthly payment beingfor all principal and any accrued interest not yet paid.

The Company's obligations under the Credit Line is secured by the Company'saccounts receivable, inventory, intellectual property, all business assets withthe exception of real estate and equipment. The Credit Line requires the Companyto maintain certain financial covenants and also contains representations andwarranties, and events of default applicable to the Company that are customaryfor agreements of this type.

The foregoing description of the Amended Credit Facility does not purport to bea complete statement of the parties' rights and obligations under such documentsand is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the SixthAmendment to Loan Agreement and Fifth Amendment to Security Agreement, the Notemodification Agreement, and the Addendum to Promissory Note, dated December 29,2021, copies of which are attached as Exhibit 10.1 through 10.3 to this CurrentReport on Form 8-K and incorporated by reference herein.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an

The information contained in Item 1.01 of this Current Report on Form 8-K withrespect to the Amended Credit Facility is incorporated by reference herein andmade a part hereof.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the original:
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an...

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday, stopping the Department of Defense and the Biden administration from punishing U.S. Navy SEALs who object to getting the COVID-19 vaccine on the grounds of religion.

Attorneys with First Liberty Institute filed a federal lawsuit in November on behalf of 35 servicemembers. The lawsuit outlined that multiple plaintiffs have religious objections to getting immunized against COVID-19 because "the vaccines were developed, tested, or produced using aborted fetal cell lines."

Many of the SEALs have already contracted and recovered from COVID-19, while some have had antibodies tests showing that they acquired natural immunity.

In Monday's order, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor said, "The Navy service members, in this case, seek to vindicate the very freedoms they have sacrificed so much to protect. The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution."

CBN News previously reported that a new directive issued by the Navy states that if a SEAL declines the vaccine, the military could attempt to recover money that the government has spent on his training.

"Forcing a service member to choose between their faith and serving their country is abhorrent to the Constitution and America's values," said Mike Berry, general counsel for First Liberty Institute. "Punishing SEALs for simply asking for a religious accommodation is purely vindictive and punitive. We're pleased that the court has acted to protect our brave warriors before more damage is done to our national security."

"After all these elite warriors have done to defend our freedoms, the Navy is now threatening their careers, families, and finances. It's appalling and it has to stop," Berry said.

The news comes as the U.S. Navy and Air Force are being accused of giving blanket denials to all requests for religious exemptions from the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

All branches of the military are required by law to evaluate religious accommodation requests (RAR's) on an individual basis to ensure due process under the Fifth Amendment and protect servicemembers' First Amendment right to religious freedom.

But the Navy has reportedly created a lengthy 50-step standard operating procedure to streamline the denials of the RAR's.

A Navy spokesman told CBN News in December there is no "blanket policy" about denying religious exemption requests. Each is allegedly considered on a case-by-case basis. There are, however, very strict guidelines that must be met, including a history of objecting to vaccinations. And anyone who refuses to get vaccinated, Christian or not, will be given a general discharge.

First Liberty points out that SEALs dedicate years of their lives in training to become the most elite fighting force. Yet, the Navy is willing to oust them or force them to repay the cost of their training simply because their beliefs keep them from receiving a COVID vaccine.

Meanwhile, dozens of congressional lawmakers recently announced their support for the group of Navy SEALs, arguing that their applications for religious exemptions from the mandate were unfairly denied.

"No right is more precious than the right to religious liberty," the lawmakers said in the brief addressed to Judge O'Connor. "That is why the very first clause of the very First Amendment explicitly states that 'Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise' of religion."

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

Read the original:
'No COVID-19 Exception to the First Amendment': Judge Sides with Navy SEALs Challenging Vaccine Mandate - CBN News

The riot at the U.S. Capitol still looms large in the minds of members of Congress who represent Virginia and Maryland.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., was on the Senate floor on Jan. 6, when a rioting mob invaded the U.S. Capitol in an effort to disrupt certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Less than an hour before people smashed windows and spilled inside the Capitol, Warner, a Democratic lawmaker, had been looking out at the protesters and reflecting on his duty to defend the Constitution.

It wasnt long before he and other lawmakers were being rushed away from the Senate chamber to shelter in place as angry and violent demonstrators started to break past overwhelmed U.S. Capitol police officers outside.

I still think about that one Capitol Police officer who led insurrectionists away from the Senate floor, Warner said, referring to Officer Eugene Goodman.

There couldve been much more damage, much more violence, Warner said. You couldve had members of the Senate killed if those folks who were out for blood had broken onto the Senate floor with the Senate still in session.

Warner still finds it chilling that the Senate parliamentarians office, which is responsible for securing the electoral votes linked to the presidential election, was totally trashed in a way that no other office was trashed (in) the Capitol.

Warner said there are still lots of questions that need to be answered about people who were allowed to take tours of the Capitol in the days before Jan. 6, which require assistance from lawmakers.

Democrats and Republicans both condemned the attack on the Capitol many as it was happening including Rep. Rob Wittman, a GOP lawmaker who represents Virginias 1st District.

But in the months that have followed, theres been a growing divide between congressional members of the two parties.

Democrats question whether some of the insurrectionists may have received assistance or guidance from Republican House members, which GOP lawmakers have denied.

The House select committee investigating the attack recently announced it is seeking testimony from some Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who spoke with former President Trump on Jan. 6.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said there is no question that what happened on Jan. 6 still reverberates on Capitol Hill.

What is even scarier right now is that this poison is still circulating in the political bloodstream, Van Hollen said. The poison that hit the Capitol on Jan. 6 is still very much alive in the body politic and weve got to address that as a country.

He and other lawmakers say there is a greater lack of trust between lawmakers of the two parties.

Ill confess it is harder to work with some of our colleagues that continue to promote the Big Lie, he said, referring to Republicans who continue to deny that President Joe Biden fairly won the election.

Van Hollen said those who promote false claims that former President Trump won the election are especially dangerous to our democracy.

Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he believes appropriate steps have been taken to improve security at the Capitol.

But he was upset in the immediate aftermath of Jan. 6, noting he had been repeatedly assured by the FBI that appropriate steps had been taken to deal with the gathering of Trump supporters.

He and other lawmakers are encouraged by changes in intelligence sharing as well as procedures involving the activation of the National Guard.

The D.C. National Guard waited for hours as rioters fought with police officers before they were finally called in to help secure the Capitol.

Weve made additional investments, Warner said of increased funding for the Capitol Police, which includes money to hire more officers, pay for improved training and equipment.

I think its very important that we included the ability for the Capitol Police to call in the National Guard if they need additional help, God forbid something like this happens again, he said.

He said Capitol Police will continue to need improved access to intelligence related to potential threats and chatter on social media.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., agrees that important security improvements have been made.

But the Democratic lawmaker said threats remain, as long as congressional supporters of former President Trump continue to back his claim that he was cheated out of winning the election, even though there is no evidence of that.

The former president has suggested that the hundreds of people arrested have been unfairly prosecuted.

There are members of the GOP sadly, including elected members of the Senate and House, who are trying to sugarcoat and rewrite what happened that day, Kaine said.

The House select committee investigating the riot at the Capitol and what led to it plans to hold public hearings this year.

Up until now, much of the panels work has been behind closed doors. Hundreds of people have provided testimony, while some of Donald Trumps strongest supporters have refused to testify or pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

The House recently voted largely along party lines to hold former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows in contempt of Congress, for failing to answer a subpoena.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the select committee, said Meadows needs to answer questions related to texts he received before and during the insurrection.

Raskin of Maryland also said during a floor speech that Meadows lawsuit against the committee, which argues it has overstepped its power, is without merit.

Raskin said the Constitution gives Congress the power to suppress insurrections.

And this we will do by investigating and reporting on the most dangerous political violence ever unleashed against the Capitol by a domestic enemy, Raskin said.

Many Republicans argue that the select committee investigation is politically partisan, though the vice chair of the panel is Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.

The committee hopes to release an interim report later this year.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC, said there is no getting around what happened nearly a year ago at the Capitol, even though some would like it to become a distant memory.

We still live in Jan. 6, she said.

I think try as they might, its impossible to whitewash Jan. 6, she said. It looms over us like a ghost, particularly over the Capitol.

Norton said for lawmakers to get past what happened in 2021, it will likely take years,

Were going to have to find ways, she said, and I think frankly itll take another election.

Go here to read the rest:
Jan. 6 looms over Capitol and Congress 'like a ghost' - WTOP

The U.S. Navy and Air Force are being accused of giving blanket denials to all requests for religious exemptions from the military's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. It's happening even though there are federal laws and regulations in place to prevent such a total and outright denial of religious rights.

Just the News reports all branches of the military are required by law to evaluate religious accommodation requests (RAR's) on an individual basis to ensure due process under the Fifth Amendment and protect service members' First Amendment right to religious freedom.

The news outlet reports Vice Admiral John Nowell, deputy chief of naval operations for manpower, personnel, training, and education, created a 50-step standard operating procedure streamlining the denials of the RAR's.

But according to a formal complaint bought by an anonymous Navy officer to the chief of naval operations, the lengthy review process is just for show.

The 50-step procedure is broken down into six phases. By the fourth phase of the review, even though it's designed to provide the appearance of individual consideration of a RAR, the denial template has already been added, numerous offices have endorsed the denial, and a drafted memo to Nowell requests a denial, according to Just the News.

However, a Navy spokesman told CBN News in December there is no "blanket policy" about denying religious exemption requests. Each is allegedly considered on a case-by-case basis. There are, however, very strict guidelines that must be met, including a history of objecting to vaccinations. And anyone who refuses to get vaccinated, Christian or not, will be given a general discharge.

The Air Force has also rebuffed allegations that it has issued a standard denial for all religious exemption requests.

On Monday, the military branch told Just the News, "The Department of the AF does an individualized least restrictive means analysis for each case."

On Dec. 22, the Air Force said it has received more than 10,000 RAR requests, but also revealed in the same press release that none of the requests had been approved. More than 150 were being appealed.

"Each member's request is carefully considered to balance the government's compelling interest in mission accomplishment with the service member's sincerely held belief," Under Secretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones said. "Although the chaplain may advise the member's belief is sincere, MAJCOM and FLDCOM commanders have to balance that member's interests against the overall impact on operational readiness, health and safety of members and good order and discipline within the unit."

According to Just the News, on Dec. 3, Maj. Gen. Sharon Bannister, director of medical operations in the Department of the Air Force office of the surgeon general, went on record, telling the District Court for Middle District of Florida, "The Air Force does not apply a 'blanket' rule that no less restrictive means of protecting the force exists other than a vaccination."

"The Approval and Appeal Authority must look at numerous factors that vary by individual," she continued. "The Department of the Air Force strives to make sure full and appropriate consideration is given to each request. Where an accommodation can be granted without adversely impacting the compelling government interest in mission accomplishment, it will be."

As CBN News reported in December, a growing number of U.S. service members say the military is stripping them of their religious liberties. Many of the COVID-19 vaccination deadlines for active-duty members have passed without a single religious exemption being granted.

"It goes against my bodily sovereignty as a Christian. I mean God makes it very clear. This body that I'm given is my last bastion of freedom," one Army National Guardsman told CBN News. At the request of legal counsel, he asked not to be identified.

He says he received other vaccines from the military without doing much research. But that wasn't the case with the COVID-19 shot.

In his request for a religious exemption, he cited fetal cell lines used in the research and development phase of the mRNA vaccines and in the production of Johnson & Johnson's shot. If his request isn't granted, he says he'll take a discharge before violating his beliefs.

First Liberty Institute is representing a group of 35 Navy SEALs seeking exemptions with similar concerns.

"There are various religious objections our clients have to the vaccine. Each of them prayed earnestly for God's direction and they do not feel they can, in good faith, take this vaccine. Also, many of them object because of the documented link between this vaccine and aborted fetal cells," Attorney Mike Berry said in a statement to CBN News.

Berry argues it's unconstitutional for their requests to be denied.

"That's blatant discrimination. You can't treat religious beliefs less favorably than you treat medical conditions or administrative exemptions. Religious freedom in our country is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and that doesn't change just because you serve in the military," Berry said.

In addition, late last month, dozens of congressional lawmakers announced their support for a group of Navy SEALs who sued the Biden administration and the Defense Department for refusing to grant religious exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

"No right is more precious than the right to religious liberty," the lawmakers said in the brief addressed to U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor. "That is why the very first clause of the very First Amendment explicitly states that 'Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise' of religion."

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told CBN News in December, religious exemptions are rare. For example, none has been granted in either the Navy or Marines in almost a decade.

"This is not about liberties it's about a military medical requirement to keep them safe, to keep their families safe, to keep their units safe and the Secretary continues to strongly believe that these vaccines are the best way to do it with respect to COVID," Kirby said

***Please sign up forCBN Newslettersand download theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***

See the article here:
These 2 US Military Branches Stand Accused of Rejecting All Religious Exemptions to Vax Mandate - CBN News