The New York Times’ Culture-War Definition of Free Speech – The New Republic

At the end of April, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Brandi Levy, a high school cheerleader, who posted Fuck school fuck cheer fuck softball fuck everything to Snapchat in 2017 and was kicked off the team for a year. The words were superimposed over a photo showing B.L. and her friend with their middle fingers raised, members of her legal team explained. The courts ruling in this case could potentially disrupt the established principle that students do not lose their right to free speech at the schoolhouse gate, as the court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969. Mother Jones called Levys case the most important student free speech case to come before the Supreme Court in a half-century.

One notable figure on todays free speech beat, Michael Powell of The New York Times, surely missed an opportunity to highlight this case in his story, published this weekend, on the alleged wavering of First Amendment defense at the American Civil Liberties Union. In Powells telling, the organization is locked in an unprecedented, perhaps irreconcilable struggle between free speech and social justice. Its national and state staff members debate, often hotly, whether defense of speech conflicts with advocacy for a growing number of progressive causes, including voting rights, reparations, transgender rights and defunding the police, Powell writes. As a result, he claims, the organization has fallen down on its principles. One hears markedly less from the A.C.L.U. about free speech nowadays. Its annual reports from 2016 to 2019 highlight its role as a leader in the resistance against President Donald J. Trump. But the words First Amendment or free speech cannot be found. Nor do those reports mention colleges and universities, where the most volatile speech battles often play out.

Much the same, however, could be said about some glaring omissions in Powells own missive. What he pitches as a document of an existential threat to the organizations commitment to free speech should be seen for what it is: a culture war in 1As clothing. Its a familiar trick, one which everyone from Josh Hawley to Abigail Shrierwhose anti-trans work Powell referenceshas tried in the immediate post-Trump era. By comparison, Powell aims for a lighter touch, but his omissionsof history, of the organizations present caseloadreveal the storys true concern: a certain kind of speech, for a certain kind of person.

See the rest here:

The New York Times' Culture-War Definition of Free Speech - The New Republic

In some countries, people think they have too much freedom of speech – The Economist

Jun 7th 2021

WESTERNERS TEND to regard freedom of speech as a universal good. However, a forthcoming report by Justitia, a Danish think-tank, demonstrates that public support for freedom of expression varies widely among countries, just as legal restraints on speech do. In many countries, particularly authoritarian regimes, people say they want fewer controls. But perhaps surprisingly, in a handful of places poll respondents suggest they want less freedom than they currently have.

The Economist Today

A daily email with the best of our journalism

The report is based on a survey conducted in February of 50,000 people in 33 countries. The researchers asked respondents whether they believed that a wide range of controversial statements, such as insulting the national flag or making offensive comments about minority groups or religious beliefs, should be permitted. They combined the average responses to each of these questions into an index of support for free speech. They then compared these scores with an index of freedom of expression compiled by V-Dem, another think-tank, which measures how much liberty people in each country enjoy in practice.

In general, the more freedom respondents in a given country said they wanted, the more that country tended to provide. One inescapable weakness in the reports approach is that people in places with tight restrictions on speech may not feel comfortable telling pollsters how they really feel. However, large shares of respondents in many authoritarian countries, including Egypt, Turkey and Russia, were nonetheless willing to say that they approved of liberties that their governments do not protect. This was particularly true in countries that started to limit freedom of expression only recently, such as Hungary and Venezuela. Perhaps people who once enjoyed freer speech than they do now are more likely to support it than are those who have always lived under stricter rules.

However, just as respondents in many countries said they did not have enough freedom of expression, people in others tended to say they were actually given too much liberty. This pattern was most pronounced in Kenya, Tunisia, and Nigeria. These countries grant rights similar to those found in Japan or Israel, but their citizens tend to disapprove of freedom of speech just as much as people do in Egypt or Turkeythe two countries with the toughest restrictions on expression among the 33 surveyed by Justitia.

Although not enough data is available to explain this phenomenon fully, faith and sectarianism may play a role. In general, respondents in Muslim-majority countries were far less supportive of free speechparticularly when it comes to offensive comments about religionthan those elsewhere. Within the Muslim world, this pattern tends to hold regardless of a countrys form of government: respondents were barely more enthusiastic about freedom of expression in democratic Indonesia than they were in authoritarian Egypt. In both Tunisia and Nigeria, Islamist movements have gained ground over the past decade. They may have shifted public opinion against free speech faster than those countries governments could change laws.

Another possible explanation is sectarian conflict. Kenya and Nigeria have been riven by fighting between ethnic groups at various points during the past two decades, and citizens of those countries may fear that hostile speech presages violence. Kenyas low overall score on support for freedom of expression was driven largely by the 82% of respondents there who said that the government should be able to prevent people from making statements that are offensive to minority groups, which was by far the highest share in the survey. In both rich countries and poor ones, people are often willing to sacrifice civil liberties if they think their safety is at risk.

View original post here:

In some countries, people think they have too much freedom of speech - The Economist

OPINION: How defamation suits are used to stifle free speech – The Richmond Observer

This is indeed true most of the time. But it doesn't mean that government agents with hurt feelings won't sometimes try suing private citizens who have the temerity to criticize how government bureaucrats do their jobs. Such was the case earlier this spring when Louisville Metro Police officer Cory Evans filed a lawsuit against the "DUI Guy" an attorney named Larry Forman who has a YouTube channel for defamation after Forman accused Evans of planting evidence.

As Louisvilles WDRB reports:

"Forman posted body camera footage to his YouTube channel from a 2018 incident where LMPD Officer Cory Evans searched a man's vehicle following a suspected DUI. The video depicts officer Evans and another unidentified officer searching the vehicle for alcohol. Evans looks in the center console without finding anything, but the video jumps forward to the view of the other officer, who opens the console and finds a bottle of liquor minutes later."

While I dont agree with Forman when he concludes, The video speaks for itself, Formans conclusion is nonetheless quite plausible. In other words, the body cam video footage makes it easy to see how Forman could sincerely believe that Evans did indeed plant the evidence. That is, Forman may have simply been stating what he believed to be the truth.

Now, Evanss attorney claims the accusation has hurt the reputation of the LMPD officer and the suit is seeking damages.

Lets hope Evans loses, and loses big.

Defamation as a Means to Silence Critics

The problem of a police officer suing a community member for an accusation of abuse helps illustrate one of the central problems with defamation lawsuits: they can be used by powerful people to silence critics.

In the United States, we are fortunate that it is quite difficult to win a defamation lawsuit. Generally speaking, in American courts, plaintiffs claiming damages from defamation must prove actual harm as well as intent to harm. The plaintiff must also prove the defamatory comments are false.

The difficulty of winning a defamation suit under such circumstances helps discourage countless defamation lawsuits. Thank goodness.

Alas, in other parts of the world, this is not the case, and we find many cases of government agents suing or prosecuting citizens for defamation. We even find wealthy and powerful private citizens suing critics, even when those critics are apparently stating what they believe to be facts.

The potential for abusing defamation law helps illustrate, yet again, the wisdom of deferring to freedom of speech as a dominating legal principle, and as a philosophy behind the US governments First Amendment. The presumption should be overwhelmingly in favor of the freedom to speak freely, as efforts to limit speech in the name of protecting reputations presents many opportunities for the abuse of government power.

In all times and places, of course, agents of the regime prefer to silence their critics if they think they can get away with it. Historically, regimes have employed many strategies, such as blasphemy laws, or have simply outlawed criticism. But, as The Economist has reported:

"All these approaches attract international criticism. So some governments turn instead to defamation laws. Defamation is recognised almost everywhere as grounds for a civil claim, in which subjects of wanton and damaging falsehoods can demand financial compensation. But when defamation is a criminal offence, governments can go beyond fining critics who have caused demonstrable harm, and imprison them simply for speaking. Though several countries have recently decriminalised defamation, many more still prosecute it zealously. And even where it can no longer lead to jail, charges can stifle criticism if courts award vast damages."

Fortunately, in the United States, where defamation are suits are generally difficult, it is especially difficult for government personnel or government agencies to sue for defamation.

This has been true for many decades, and this tendency toward skepticism of government-initiated suits was greatly strengthened in the American courts in 1964 with the Sullivan ruling, in which the U.S. Supreme Court concluded:

For good reason, no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence.

In the U.K., on the other hand, protections against defamation suits have been far weaker, even in regard to suits by government agencies. Only in recent decades, for example, has the UK turned toward heavily and explicitly restricting government suits against critics.

Use by Private Parties to Intimidate Critics

Invoking the government's courts to cover "damages" can be used in the private sector to silence one's opponents as well.

In the United Kingdom, where defamation laws are far more extensive than in the United States, we can find cases of defamation suits used to gain commercial and political advantage.

For example, when a plastic surgeon expressed doubts over the efficacy of a breast-enhancement cream, the creams manufacturers threatened the surgeon with legal action.

In another case, Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz sued a researcher who publicly concluded that Mahfouz had given money to al-Qaeda.

Such lawsuits would be quickly dismissed in the United States, but in the UK, matters are different. As NPR has reported:

"Crooks and brigands from around the world come [to the UK] launder their reputations, where they couldn't get exculpation in either their home country or indeed in the United States of America," says Mark Stephens, a London lawyer who often represents media companies in these cases. In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically loses. "So you've got the rich and powerful shutting down and chilling speech which is critical of them," says Stephens.

Of course, the fact that its very hard to win defamation lawsuits in the US doesnt mean no one ever threatens them. Donald Trump, for example, is notorious for threatening defamation suits against critics. This dates back to well before his years as an elected official or presidential candidate. In 1984, for example, Trump sued architecture columnist Paul Gapp for making fun of Trumps plan to build a two hundredstory skyscraper in southern Manhattan. Trump claimed Gapps remarks caused Trump $500 million in damages.

Trump has tried many similar suits, including a suit against a writer who said Trump wasnt really a billionaire in 2006.

Trump sued one of his own Trump University students in 2010 over the students criticism of the schools business practices.

Thanks to the U.S.s laissez-faire attitude toward defamation, these cases were dismissed relatively quickly, although not without first causing his victims many sleepless nights and legal fees.

One can only hope that the lawsuit brought by Cory Evans of the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department receives the contempt that it deserves from the courts.

After all, government agents and agencies already exercise far more power over their fellow citizens than is the case for average people. The last thing we need is for these agents of the regime to be able to threaten their critics with lawsuits for the act of merely saying things.

Police officers and other government employees who dont like being subject to public criticism can always resign their positions and become ordinary private taxpaying citizens.

Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute.He has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado and was a housing economist for the State of Colorado. He is the author of "Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre." Republished from mises.org.

Original post:

OPINION: How defamation suits are used to stifle free speech - The Richmond Observer

Digital sovereignty vs freedom of speech? – The News International

The PTI government is on the back foot on the proposed digital regulation draft after a strong protest by the media and journalists community calling for a struggle to preserve free speech. While the government was thinking of some curbs on the content of the social media, the mainstream journalists are adamant not to allow such restrictions as they believe electronic media is already subjected to over-regulation.

But is the government right in imposing curbs and how far we need to go in preserving constitutional safeguards like freedom of speech? Are we aware of the new challenges that come with the advent of evolving cyberspace?

The debate is more relevant in the broader context of new realities: the exponential growth of net usage, its effects on the consumers, particularly the youth, the power of international media platforms, and the abuse of cyberspace by hackers, terrorists, and dark propagandists in the post-Covid-19 world.

Concerning net usage, Covid-19 has multiplied reliance on the internet as a means of education, communication, diplomacy, trade, and services from take-aways to household shopping. Due to staying home to avoid contraction of Covid-19, physical-societal space has dramatically shrunk, diffusing virtual interactions and communication.

The extent of digitalization of Pakistani society is by and large measured from these numbers: As of April 2021, the percentage of internet users in Pakistan is almost 50 percent which means approximately 100 million citizens, while 70% of consumers are youth a good as well as bad news. The good news is the youth has mounting aspirations, exposure and new avenues to explore opportunities in their lives through the net. The bad news is they are also exposed to dark propaganda, twisted narratives, influences, and ominous content targeting their innocent minds to sign up to particular agendas.

Since cyberspace is a new realm, the state has no digital sovereignty as a result it has grave implications unfolding in various ways: Besides, sexting among kids, a 2 years old kid can watch cartoons equally tagged for other messages. Then there are manuals of bomb-making and all sorts of terrorist activities which can be performed as a lone wolf warrior. Whereas various chat rooms can encourage them to imbibe the dark propaganda and hence respond. For example, the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq getting traction and recruitment in the western world was due to the net-based propaganda, its influence, and information operations.

In Pakistan's context, the virtual world brings in new challenges to the youth of Balochistan in particular as it subjects them to the consumption of all sorts of information, propaganda, and influences of militants and terrorist outfits. Balochistan has around 70 percent youth under the age of 22 years. They have the keyboards and the time of the whole world, but can hardly make sense between what is valid information and what is dark propaganda.

The influence of militant operations and their sponsors through dozens of websites and servers operating mostly out of India underscores the vulnerabilities of the youth to get access to their nefarious activities from a narrative building, claiming terror incidents of bomb blast to delegitimising the statehood of Pakistan.

Worse, the manipulation of the youth of Balochistan through social media is an art only to exacerbate biases, stereotypes, and mischaracterization of Pakistan and Balochistan's future aspirations through CPEC and its development trajectory. It is very important that the authorities concerned invest in digitalized projects to engage the youth of Balochistan and give a counter-narrative to militants and also check what is being churned out through social media.

At the country level, the net platform is a digital window to be an interface between an individual and the state, between society and the state, and hence it necessitates a case for a legitimate, much larger debate as to what restrictions and regulations should space be subjected to and who should decide "the good" for the state and society.

Learning from western experiences, hackers, cyber schemers, and dark propagandists are already undermining the digital sovereignty of advanced countries like America, the UK, and Russia.

Recent examples of how digital threat in real life is unfolding as a bigger problem to advanced economies are as follows: recently non-state actors attacked a gas pipeline called Colonial pipeline in America disrupting supply to the entire East Coast. In recent times ransomware (extorting money through digital blackmail or hacking from companies) and cyber attacks have targeted financial markets, schools, hospitals, and other government networks and influence operations for diverse purposes like recruitment, terrorism, and other anti-state criminal activities.

In other instances, India subjecting Twitter to Indian IT laws and the power of private giants like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter suspending individual accounts President Trump's accounts suspension under the pretext of checking hate speech demonstrate the extent of the power, a) the influence of global social media giants and, b) the limits of freedom of speech.

Interestingly, India banned Chinese apps like TikTalk and WeChat. Most European countries including the UK and France banned Hawaii 5G. While China has threatened two EU companies like Erricson and Samsung to be proscribed, it already has its own version of FB, Twitter, and Whatsapp. The above examples have brought a new debate to the fore the de-facto corporate sovereignty vs state's digital sovereignty.

Lessons learnt: Pakistan also has to transit from analog sovereignty to digital sovereignty which encompasses control and direction of anarchic content, software development, and companies power. Here one point extrapolation of digital sovereignty with some complete border control is not meant, but a state directing the speed of companies and regulating the content of digital social space so it does not create threats to the state and society's integrity and sanctity.

The problem Pakistan is facing is we as a whole have yet to evolve a strategic coherence about the challenges of digital threats.

Our elite from media to judiciary and policymaking need to recognize compelling cases to assert digital sovereignty by imposing regulations on free-for-all content that it has to regulate the borders of cyberspace and develop the capability to counter virtual threats to its digital systems and society at large.

Rather than clinging to archaic laws and principles meant for addressing the challenges of the bygone era, we need to balance the state's case for regulated digital platforms and content, and the free speech imperative which is not absolute in its very nature and is already subject to limits even in the western societies.

Currently, individuals and big companies' boards decide what to say and how to say, hence the law unto themselves where they should be subject to a sovereign state's law: this should be the baseline for the country to start with.

The recent debate of free speech and the anarchic content on social media platforms need to be understood, and broadly debated, to draw a line as to where a state can regulate, and how far should it go vis--vis the recognition of the limits of free speech so that we do meet the challenges of the new de facto realities of the virtual world.

(Jan Achakzai is a geopolitical analyst, a politician from Balochistan, and an ex-adviser to the Balochistan government on media and strategic communication. He remained associated with BBC World Service. He is also Chairman of the Centre for Geo-Politics & Balochistan. He tweets @Jan_Achakzai)

Follow this link:

Digital sovereignty vs freedom of speech? - The News International

Free speech protects ideas, including the right to truthfully advertise – Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)

Free speech is all around us, even in ways that might not be immediately obvious.

We talk a lot about the First Amendments free speech protections during campaign season, when individuals want to express a deeply held idea, when they want to refrain from speaking, and when an idea is deemed unacceptable by certain groups.

The Constitutions protection of free speech surely matters in all those situations, but free speech is a much broader value than thatit is at the root of our most basic human and social needs, including our economic dealings.

Our daily economic lives depend on free speech in underappreciated ways. Many of us earn our livelihood through creative activity and trade, and both are directly related to the First Amendment. But every single one of us depends on commercial messagesadvertisements, solicitations, and descriptions of products and servicesto improve our economic well-being in one way or another.

All those boxes on the grocery store shelves, for example, are not just dinner; they are the tangible expression of the First Amendment.

But surprisingly, courts have not treated this essential and routine expression of free speech to full First Amendment protection.

Since the 1980 case of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, several Supreme Court decisions have created an untenable hierarchy in First Amendment law. The law sometimes reserves the highest protection for the expression of political ideas but allows the government more latitude to restrict speech that provides commercial information.

Further, courts have held that speech by compensated professionals may be regulated in ways that political speech may not.

So when award-winning restaurateur Chef Geoff Tracy wanted to advertise happy hour deals at his Virginia restaurant, the speech police were waiting to shut down ads that used the verboten phrases happy hour or two-for-one. Why? Because of an arbitrary law restricting his freedom of speech.

Virginia law allowed restaurants to offer half-priced drinks but made it illegal to call these specials two-for-one.

A similar situation faced Peggy Fontenot, an Indian artist who belongs to a tribe that the State of Oklahoma doesnt recognize. When she marketed her artwork as American Indian-made, the state told her she didnt qualify as a real Native American.

Likewise, the Georgia Board of Nursing was worried that if Debbie Pulley honestly explained her decades of experience as a midwife, people might jump to the conclusion that she was a practicing registered nurseso they tried to deny her the right to use the word midwife to describe herself.

In each of those cases, Pacific Legal Foundation fought back and won, protecting the right of free speech. But in each of those cases, the odds were stacked against us because the speech touches on economic regulations. Government had a thumb on the scale that wouldnt be there in any other free speech case.

Because the courts have created a two-track First Amendment, numerous free speech principles that protect the free expression in some contexts have no application to commercial or professional speech.

The overbreadth and prior-restraint doctrines prevent government from regulating speech with too broad a brush, or stifling speech before it is uttered, but they are generally inapplicable to commercial speech restrictions. And while restrictions on noncommercial speech that discriminate against certain topicswhat courts call content-based restrictionsare subject to the highest judicial scrutiny, content-based restrictions on commercial speech remain subject to only middling review.

Justice Clarence Thomas has correctly written that there is no philosophical or historical basis for asserting that commercial speech is of lower value than noncommercial speech.

The truth is that for many people, seemingly mundane communications about products, services, prices, and economic opportunities are as important to them in their daily lives as the most contentious or momentous political debates. This is truer than ever in the age of the internet, where global trade thrives online and new ways of delivering professional services, like telemedicine and online education, are becoming the norm.

The free exchange of ideas and information is vital for human progress in both our intellectual and material lives.

PLF is committed to the consistent application of the First Amendment, overturning the precedent that has undermined protections for commercial and professional speech.

See the original post here:

Free speech protects ideas, including the right to truthfully advertise - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)

EDITORIAL | South Koreas New Limits on Free of Speech are At Odds with a Seat at the G7 Table – JAPAN Forward

~~

~

That the dictatorship of the Communist Party and military in North Korea (the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, DPRK) suppresses free speech is taken for granted, and it regularly draws criticism from around the world. But such aversion to free speech is not limited to authoritarian regimes.

It can also become a problem when a nation that espouses freedom and democracy adopts policies and institutions which directly impinge on freedom of speech.

A serious example of this is the new South Korean law that took effect in March, banning the dissemination of leaflets critical of the Pyongyang regime into North Korea by balloon.

In South Korea it had previously been a common practice for individuals and groups who oppose the Pyongyang regime headed by supreme leader Kim Jong Un to attach leaflets and relief supplies to helium balloons which were then sent across the 38th parallel into North Korean territory.

These materials harshly criticize the inhuman dictatorship in North Korea and explain the truth about the current international situation and history.

Outlawing sending leaflets north amounts to trampling on one of the most important rights possessed by citizens of democratic countriesfreedom of speech.

The new law was adopted by South Korean president Moon Jae-in and his ruling party in response to a strong criticism from Pyongyang last year demanding that the balloon flights be stopped. This knuckling under to threats from Pyongyang by the South Korean leadership defies belief.

When President Moon met with U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington D.C. on May 21, they discussed various issues related to North Korea. One of the things observers had an eye on was what the two men would have to say about the new law banning leaflet distribution.

During an April meeting of the U.S. bipartisan congressional human rights commission, the South Korean government had come under heavy criticism for among other things trying to make South Korean society more like that of North Korea.

Then at the beginning of May, South Korean police conducted a raid to search the offices of a group made up of defectors from North Korea on suspicion that they had violated the new law by releasing large balloons carrying 500,000 leaflets near the Demilitarized Zone separating the two Koreas. That was clear suppression of free speech.

President Biden has vowed that under his administration the United States will speak up about human rights issues around the world. It is, therefore, unfortunate that the issue of the anti-leaflet law was not solved during his summit meeting with Moon.

The joint statement issued following their summit meeting simply reiterated general policies, such as we agree to work together to improve the human rights situation in the DPRK.

The international community should not pretend it does not see what is happening with the anti-leaflet law, which is emblematic of how the Moon administration regularly kowtows to Pyongyang.

Australia, India, South Korea and some other countries have been invited to attend the G7 summit scheduled to start in the United Kingdom on June 11 because they are said to share the same common values of the G7 members.

However, we have to question whether the Moon deserves a seat at that table, considering how his administration so abjectly fawns over the dictatorship in North Korea while cracking down on free speech in South Korea.

The G7 members, along with other attendees such as Australia and India, should press Moon to withdraw the anti-leaflet law.

RELATED

(Read The Sankei Shimbun editorial in Japanese at this link.)

Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun

See original here:

EDITORIAL | South Koreas New Limits on Free of Speech are At Odds with a Seat at the G7 Table - JAPAN Forward

Readers write: Points on free speech and public school – Yahoo News

Points on free speech

Thank you for the terrific Jan. 25 Explainer, Twitter banned Trump. Is free speech at risk? The question-and-answer format was perfect for batting aside talking points in a clear, concise manner. I have two suggestions that would have made this article a bit more convincing (at least to a reasonable reader), though I have no idea how the writer would have incorporated them:

1. In addition to the choices by corporations being legally permissible, they are the direct consequence of past behavior of the users being blocked or banned. These decisions were taken in response to the users actions (inflammatory language, lies, etc.), not prejudgment of possible future action (censorship).

2. For those who insist that Twitter has replaced the public square, why should offensive speech or deception online be permitted more leeway? Saying the same thing on Main Street would rightly alarm law enforcement.

Rusty WyrickGhivizzano, Italy

Thanks for the March 8 review of Bill Gates book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, headlined Big challenges energize Bill Gates, especially climate change. Unfortunately, the most telling passage was of Mr. Gates mentioning how huge his own carbon footprint was. It is human nature to crave wealth and the status it brings, and wealth usually brings a prodigal lifestyle. Thus I crave articles about those who practice modest consumption, even as they are generous with their wealth. Those who teach by example are the ones who inspire me.

John StettlerDallas

Your timely March 29 Explainer, Housing crunch: Is flexible zoning the answer? emphasizes the racial aspects of a problem that is far more complex. SB 9 and SB 10, currently under consideration in the California Legislature, would override local residential controls. Suburban issues involved include lack of adequate water supply, traffic congestion, school funding, and environmental questions all of which existing householders have been struggling with for years.

Story continues

Location of housing and education are clearly linked, but these bills, and numerous others now under consideration by the state, are no solution to affordable housing. A policy simply promoting duplexes is not the road to solving a complicated dilemma.

Gloria Wyeth NeumeierKentfield, California

I recently read the April 5 Explainer, Why enrollment matters to district bottom lines. I think that public education will change forever, and Im not optimistic about where it is going. My own familys experience has been terrible since March 2020, simply because only about four months have actually been in person.

What I suspect will happen is that more and more parents will realize that there are other options to public school and those with the means will use them, while those without will have no choice. The inequity in the system will increase. While there are many factors to blame, the actions of teacher organizations to resist returning to school are a prime one. I say this not only as the spouse of a former public school teacher, but also as a practicing physician who has missed zero days of work, which makes me very unsympathetic.

James SchoutenPayson, Arizona

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Here is the original post:

Readers write: Points on free speech and public school - Yahoo News

Survey suggests people think there is too much free speech – Newstalk ZB

For some countries, too much free speech is considered a bad thing.

A Danish think tank has conducted a 50,000 person, 33 country survey into the idea of free speech.

It found that, while the Western world generally agrees it's a universal good, there were a number of countries where citizens think there is too much liberty to give offence.

This was most prevalent in places like Kenya and Nigeria where they have conflict around religion and sects, with 82 percent of respondents from Kenya saying the government should be able to prevent people from saying something to offend minorities.

But some other countries without those major issues also registered as having too much freedom of speech by their own citizens such as Germany, France, Australia, Argentina and Britain.

Massey University sociologist Paul Spoonley has spent decades researching aspects of free speech. He told Mike Hosking the pandemic may have affected some Western attitudes to free speech.

Covid-19 has caused a little bit of concern about free speech. It looks to be that theres concerns about misinformation, that people are opposed to vaccines and so on.

LISTEN ABOVE

Link:

Survey suggests people think there is too much free speech - Newstalk ZB

Free speech matters for all at UCL, and so does disruptive thinking – Jewish News

University College London, a self-proclaimed institution of disruptive thinking, takes great pride in its origins. And rightly so. At a time when only white men of the Church of England could benefit from tertiary education, the opening of the Godless institution of Gower Street to people of all backgrounds, was groundbreakingly disruptive. It angered the establishment and the prevailing orthodoxies of 19th-century England.

For the Scottish clergyman, Edward Irving, London University (as it was known then) was the Synagogue of Satan. King George IV was so incandescent by the opening of Londons new secular university, that he ordered the creation of a new place of learning in London, Kings College London (KCL) which set out to imbue the minds of youth with a knowledge of the doctrines and duties of Christianity.

Thankfully, despite the widespread condemnation against UCL, it survived. And it has produced some of the worlds greatest minds, including John Stuart Mill, Mahatma Gandhi, Roger Penrose and Frances Crick. These individuals have made invaluable contributions to their fields. This is UCL at its finest. This is UCL, as a true academic institution of disruptive thinking.

Tragically, almost 200 years later, this university is no longer so welcoming to those who dare challenge the prevailing orthodoxies of our age. Just look at how students and academics have responded to the question of the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

In recent weeks and months, there has been a great deal of pressure put on the provost to retract the IHRA definition of antisemitism. UCLs governing body adopted the IHR definition in 2019. In December 2020, a working group of academics produced a report rejecting the definition. This was followed in February 2021 by UCLs academic board concluding that the IHRA definition was not fit for purpose.

In response, the UCL Students for Justice in Palestine Society (SJP) in a statement said: UCL was founded upon principles of acceptance and tolerance, academic autonomy, and freedom of speech. As a university that prides itself in being the home of disruptive thinking, the academic boards decision shows its continuous commitment to tackling discrimination and carving a new, innovative path.

And yet, despite the SJPs apparent enthusiasm for freedom of speech and disruptive thinking, on a recent Instagram post, they said that they would not engage in dialogue with Zionists. The society also refuses to engage with anyone who rejects the narrative of ethnic cleansing in Palestine and does not acknowledge apartheid within Israel, those who do not accept BDS as a legitimate form of resistance, and lastly, those who do not agree with the so-called right of return idea. In other words, the groups mindset is: if you do not agree with us, we refuse to debate you. They must enjoy talking to themselves!

Back in 2016, protesters disrupted a talk by Hen Mazzig, a former IDF soldier, organised by the UCL Friends of Israel. The protests turned violent and the police had to be called. At the time, UCL stood up for Mazzigs free speech, disciplining five of the students involved and inviting Mazzig back to speak in 2018. But now UCLs academic board seems to be in agreement with No Platform advocates, all while professing a commitment to free speech.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy here. It seems the only time free speech matters to these activists is when it comes to the vilification of Israel. Whenever Israel is brought up, suddenly, they become staunch advocates of free speech.

Defenders of Israel, on the other hand, are often silenced on UK campuses. Take, for example, an incident from November 2019 at KCL. One evening, a former senior IDF officer was set to give a talk on Israels humanitarian work for Syrians caught up in the civil war. A loud mob of 80 pro-Palestinian students protested this outside the event calling for him to be No Platformed. Despite the attempts of the few pro-Israel activists to engage in respectful dialogue, they were subjected to insults and abuse. The pro-Palestinians in attendance could have voiced their views on Israel and Zionism at the event. They could have challenged the IDF officer. But no. They chose division over discussion.

To be clear, I am not for one moment suggesting that Israel should be immune from robust criticism.The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most complicated and multifaceted conflicts on earth. The beauty of free speech is that it allows us to hear different perspectives. This paves the way for understanding, and understanding, of course, is the backbone of peace and tolerance. What is unacceptable, however, is for free speech to only exist for those who wish to demonise the worlds only Jewish state.

Free speech matters for all, and so does disruptive thinking. We should never forget that.

Harry is a student at UCL and the incoming president of the UCL Friends of Israel Society.

Excerpt from:

Free speech matters for all at UCL, and so does disruptive thinking - Jewish News

Universities must be open to free speech, says head of UCL – Evening Standard

T

he head of one of Londons top universities said speakers should not be cancelled just because people protest about them and it is the job of universities to make people uncomfortable.

Dr Michael Spence, President and Provost of University College London also warned he is concerned at a growing trend where people say they feel unsafe if somebody disagrees with them.

Speaking after new research found that more than half of people oppose speakers being no-platformed at universities, he said people have forgotten how to disagree well and many free speech problems could be solved by simple good manners.

He told the Evening Standard that he wants students to leave UCL knowing that life is more nuanced than can be explained in a Tweet, and said the institutions job is to make everybody feel uncomfortable, to make everybody wonder if they are wrong. Thats the job of a university - thats how we progress.

It comes after a study by the Policy Institute at Kings College London found that a quarter of people aged 16 to 24 supported no-platforming. But overall, 53 per cent of the public said that universities should expose students to all types of viewpoints.

Dr Spence said: My job is to make sure that the university remains a place where people can speak their mind freely. In an environment of rapidly changing values its easy for the conversation to become quite frenzied quite quickly. Its really important for universities to remain places where people can talk about difficult ideas the new ideas and the old - in ways that remain civil.

He said he is concerned at a cultural shift that has seen people say you disagree with me and therefore I feel unsafe. He said in some instances when someone is threatening physical or emotional violence that would be true, but he added: We have to be careful as a culture to make sure the mere fact that somebody disagrees with me doesnt make me unsafe.

Former home secretary Amber Rudd is among the high profile names to be no platformed. An Oxford feminist society cancelled an event 30 minute before she was due to speak at the university in March last year after concerns were raised about her involvement in the Windrush scandal.

Dr Spence said nobody has been cancelled at UCL, and he is proud that the Student Union has held debates on Israel Palestine with both Zionist and anti-Zionist speakers. A successful Womens Place UK conference was also held at the university a group that campaigns for womens right but has been accused of transphobia. He said: There were protests and that was fine.

He added: Part of the day job of a university is to deal with protests. Thats what we do for our bread and butter.

Its only the point at which the protest means you cant speak or your event cant go ahead or you are physically intimidated when theres a problem.

He said it would be hopeless if universities enforced trigger warnings in lectures warning students they might be offended by some subjects. But he added that it is just plain courtesy for lecturers to tell pupils in advance if they are going to talk about sensitive material.

He said: Its only when these things become authoritarian that they become a problem. It sounds really naff but a huge amount of the stuff in this free speech area can be dealt with just with good manners. With remembering that ideas have consequences and there are other people who may be affected by the ideas. That doesnt stop you talking about them or expressing strong opinions but it does influence how you choose to talk about them.

See the rest here:

Universities must be open to free speech, says head of UCL - Evening Standard

DHS Hit With Suit Over Spousal Visa Processing Delay – Law360

Law360 (June 9, 2021, 10:03 PM EDT) -- A lawful permanent resident of the U.S. sued the Department of Homeland Security in Maryland federal court Wednesday, claiming an unreasonable delay in processing his wife's spousal visa application, which he says has not been acted on since it was filed in January 2020.

Preet Kamal says the failure to process the application of his wife, Vishal Thakur, a citizen of India living in Australia, constitutes a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires the government agencies to conclude matters "within a reasonable time," and of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

"Preet Kamal has made repeated attempts...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Continued here:

DHS Hit With Suit Over Spousal Visa Processing Delay - Law360

Trump Judges Try to Rule that Failure to Provide Miranda Warnings Does Not Violate the Constitution and Allow Lawsuits Against Police: Confirmed…

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trumps judges on Americans rights and liberties. Cases in the series can be found by issue and by judge at this link

Trump Ninth Circuit judges Patrick Bumatay, Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson, Daniel Bress, and Lawrence VanDyke argued in dissent that police failure to give someone Miranda warnings before interrogation, as required by the Supreme Court, does not violate the Constitution and subject officers to liability for violating constitutional rights. The majority, including Trump judge Eric Miller, rejected that view and let stand a panel decision holding exactly the opposite in Tekoh v County of Los Angeles.

Terence Tekoh, a Black immigrant from Cameroon, was working at a medical center in Los Angeles when a patient accused him of sexual assault. An LA County police detective found Tekoh working in the hospital and began to question him, but never gave him the Miranda warnings required by the Supreme Court before interrogation. According to Tekoh, the deputy brought him into a small windowless office, blocked his path to the exit, and accused him of the sexual assault. After Tekoh maintained his innocence during more than 35 minutes of questioning, the detective falsely told him that the alleged incident had been captured on videotape, but Tekoh continued to state that he was innocent. The deputy ignored Tekohs request for a lawyer and Tekoh then got up to leave. The deputy then stepped on Tekohs toes, put his hand on his gun, and used racial epithets in threatening to have Tekoh and his family deported and put your black ass where it belongs. Tekoh later explained that this left him shaking and triggered flashbacks of police brutality incidents in Cameroon. The deputy then handed Tekoh a pen and paper, and essentially dictated a confession that he demanded that he sign.

Although Tekoh was charged with sexual assault and the statement was used against him, a jury acquitted him on all charges. He then sued the deputy for damages for violating his Fifth Amendment rights. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that the deputys failure to provide Miranda warnings violated the Fifth Amendment, the jury found against Tekoh, and he appealed. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel, including Trump judge Miller, unanimously reversed, holding that the trial court erroneously refused to explain to the jury that, if proven, the deputys failure to provide Tekoh with Miranda warnings and the use of his statement at trial deprived him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, for which the deputy could be held accountable.

When the deputy requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider the decision, a majority of the judges who voted, including Trump judge Miller, declined. But Trump judge Bumatay, joined by Trump judges Bennett, Nelson, Bress, and VanDyke, joined by a few others, harshly dissented. Based on their own view of the history of the Fifth Amendment and the right against self-incrimination, they maintained that Miranda is only a prophylactic rule, as the Supreme Court has often referred to it, and that failure to provide Miranda warnings does not violate the Constitution. The dissent made clear that this question is much more than theoretical. Since police officers can be held liable only for violating a constitutional right, Bumatay stated, the dissents view means that the deputy in this case, or any police officer in any case, cannot be held liable under federal civil rights law for violating the prophylactic rule of Miranda. According to the dissenters, the panel decision was an example of brazen judicial overreach that contradicts the text and history of the Fifth Amendment and the weight of precedent.

Although agreeing with some of the dissents analysis, Trump judge Miller explained why the dissents proposed result was unacceptable. Even assuming that Bumatay was correct about the history of the Fifth Amendment, and agreeing that Miranda was not an originalist decision, Miller wrote that Ninth Circuit judges lack authority to disregard the Supreme Courts precedent. As Miller explained, in striking down a Congressional law that tried to overturn Miranda in the Dickerson case, the Supreme Court specifically held that Miranda announced a constitutional rule and, as the Court indicated in another case, established a personal constitutional right. Federal civil rights law thus provides a remedy, Miller stated, when police like the deputy in this case fail to provide Miranda warnings before interrogating a suspect like Tekoh. The dissents arguments may help the deputy in preparing a writ of certiorari to try to persuade the current Supreme Court to change the law, Miller concluded, but they are a poor reason for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the panel decision.

As a result of the Ninth Circuits decision, Terence Tekoh will have a proper opportunity to get justice and accountability for the deputys misconduct in interrogating him, including the failure to provide Miranda warnings. Yet the opinions of the Trump judges in the case, including even Judge Miller who agreed with the result, are extremely troubling. Putting aside what the Supreme Court may or may not do on the issue, the Trump judges views suggest significant disregard for the importance of holding police accountable for the violation of constitutional rights as in Miranda. Indeed, a few more votes would have allowed the dissenting Trump judges to reconsider the case and rule against Tekoh.

To help preserve and extend the principle of police accountability for violating constitutional rights, it is crucial to our fight for our courts that President Biden nominate and the Senate promptly confirm judges for the Ninth Circuit who recognize the importance of this principle. Four judges on that court have stated that they will be taking senior status upon confirmation of their successors, who have yet to be nominated.

See original here:

Trump Judges Try to Rule that Failure to Provide Miranda Warnings Does Not Violate the Constitution and Allow Lawsuits Against Police: Confirmed...

What Happens When Railroad Right-of-Way is Abandoned and Turned into a Public Trail System? – JD Supra

Throughout the United States, old railroad corridors are being abandoned and converted into other uses, such as hiking, biking or other trail purposes. This converted use makes sense, as it is difficult to otherwise compile a long stretch of right-of-way that would be needed to create such trails. But are adjacent property owners entitled to some sort of just compensation when this conversion takes place? The answer is maybe.

Before a railroad operator can abandon its right-of-way, it must first secure approvals by the Surface Transportation Board. When that abandonment process takes place, public agencies can agree to railbank the corridor--essentially convert it to a trail until the railroad might need the corridor again for rail service. If there is no interim trail use conversion, then the abandonment will proceed, and in such cases, once the abandonment is finalized, adjacent property owners may be entitled to a return of their property (i.e., to the middle of the rail corridor) if the railroad held an easement. Similarly, if the trail conversion proceeds, adjacent property owners may be entitled to just compensation for the area that would have otherwise been returned to them in the event of an abandonment. The concept is that by converting an abandoned railroad into a trail use, the government is depriving the adjacent owner of property that would have otherwise been returned to the owner.

One of the leading cases discussing this concept of a taking in the context of converting an abandoned rail corridor to a public trail system is Toews v. United States, 376 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In Toews, the City of Clovis converted the abandoned railroad right of way to a public recreational trail under the federal Rails to Trails Act. The adjacent landowners filed complaints in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking just compensation for the alleged taking of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The court held that the railroad only held an easement for rail purposes, and the government could not convert that railroad easement into a recreational trail without paying just compensation:

According to an article in the Times Standard, Own land adjacent to Great Redwood Trail line? You might be entitled to compensation, this situation is again playing out in Humboldt and Mendocino counties, where landowners with property adjacent to the defunct Northwest Pacific Railroad could receive compensation from the federal government following the North Coast Railroad Authoritys request to railbank a section of the railbed for the proposed Great Redwood Trail.

If you are interested in learning more about the rail conversion process, you can check out the Rails to Trails Conservancy website, or feel free to reach out with any questions.

More here:

What Happens When Railroad Right-of-Way is Abandoned and Turned into a Public Trail System? - JD Supra

Commissioner will head King investigation | Local News | leadertelegram.com – Leader-Telegram

EAU CLAIRE Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers will appoint a special commissioner to hold a hearing on Eau Claire County District Attorney Gary Kings behavior, a step that could lead to an attempt to remove King from office.

Concerns about Kings behavior became public last week after incidents both in the courtroom and the district attorneys office. Coworkers accused King of sexually harassing a woman. An independent investigation by the county led County Administrator Kathryn Schauf to send King a letter instructing him not to have individual contact with employees.

When these employees are in the office, you are not to have any direct one-to-one contact with them until further notice, Schauf wrote. In addition, you are not to approach or question any Eau Claire County employee regarding this investigation or take any retaliatory action against any Eau Claire County employee who you may perceive to be a part of this investigation or believe may have made allegations against you.

Kings courtroom behavior has also been under scrutiny. Eau Claire County Sheriff Ron Cramer submitted a report in February after he saw King behaving oddly, and a hearing last week was postponed after a judge ordered King to have a breath test for alcohol and received the results.

The commissioner will have the authority to determine whether investigations are needed and will report on the findings.

Wisconsin law does allow for a governor to remove a district attorney, but only for cause. It requires written verified charges brought by a taxpayer who lives in the area covered by the attorney, followed by a speedy public hearing which must allow for presentation of a defense.

Witnesses at the hearing are not allowed to assert a Fifth Amendment right to silence, but neither can a witness be prosecuted for anything they say aside from perjury.

Read more here:

Commissioner will head King investigation | Local News | leadertelegram.com - Leader-Telegram

Let’s talk about Justice Kavanaugh’s vote in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System – Reason

In March, I wrote about National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. This petition challenged the federal policy that excludes women from the draft. At the time, I considered whether the Biden Administration would defend the constitutionality of the policy. Ultimately, after several extensions, the SG filed a brief that punted on the constitutional question. Rather, the SG asked the Court to deny the petition so that Congress can change the policy. Sensible enough.

Today, the Court denied cert. And there was a statement respecting the denial of certiorari. It was written by Justice Sotomayor, and joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan. Scratch that. Justice Kagan did not join. It was Justice Kavanaugh. On quick read, I simply assumed it was Justice Kagan. The team at SCOTUSBlog made the same error. But no, it was Justice Kavanaugh.

Let's walk through the statement. Justice Sotomayor begins with a rousing statement about the original meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Scratch that. Justice Sotomayor writes about the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from discriminating on the basis of sex absent an "'exceedingly persuasive justification.'" Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 9) (quoting United States v. Virginia, 518U. S. 515, 531 (1996)); see Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76 (1979); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199 (1977); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636 (1975); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973). Cf. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347U. S. 497 (1954).

Next, the statement expressed agnosticism about how Congress was addressing that issue. Scratch that. Justice Sotomayor quoted legislative history (!) describing the "hope" (!) of one member that a provision may be "incorporated" (!) in a future bill.

Just a few months ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the report, where Chairman Jack Reed expressed his "hope" that a gender-neutral registration requirement will be "incorporated into the next national defense bill." Tr. of Hearing on Final Recommendations and Report of the [NCMNPS] before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., 21 (Mar. 11, 2021).

I need to check Reading Law to see what Justice Scalia thought about citing aspirational statements of legislative history.

The statement concludes with a firm deference to Congress on matters of national affairs. Scratch that. The dissenters will give Congress a bit of time to resolve this issue, but if they don't reach the right result, the Court will.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether Congress will end gender-based registration under the Military Selective Service Act. But at least for now, the Court's longstandingdeference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue. I agree with the Court's decision to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

That's a really nice bicameralism-and-presentment you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

This statement is entirely predictable from Justice Sotomayor. Ditto for Justice Breyer.So let's talk about Justice Kavanaugh's join.

First, I am no longer convinced that Justice Kavanaugh is an actual originalist. Sure, he can talk the talk, but time and again, he writes and joins opinions that have no grounding in the original meaning of the Constitution. In a granted case, he would follow non-originalist precedent. But when writing about the denial of certiorari, he is free to write about the Constitution's original meaning. Here, he endorsed one of the most atextual opinions in modern Supreme Court history, Bolling v. Sharpe. And this citation was not a one-off. Justice Kavanaugh also cited Bolling, along withBrownin hisBostockdissent. Now I think the outcome in Bollingcan be justified on originalist groundsRandy and I talk about that case in our book. But an unexplained citation to Bollingdoes not reflect the work of a careful originalist. And his brief footnote in Bostock doesn't cut it. (Democratic Senators wasted so much time asking judicial nominees ifBrownwas correctly decided; they should have asked aboutBolling to watch the noms squirm).

Second, I fear that Justice Kavanuagh will forever try to prove that he is fair to women. In the past, his jurisprudence was not exactly pro-feminist.SeeAzar v. Garza. But the Blasey-Ford allegations, coupled with his contentious second confirmation hearing, may have changed that calculus. This join is a useful way for Justice Kavanaugh to virtue signal he favors gender equality.

Third, I think this opinion reflects another savvy move from Justice Kagan. Why didn't she join the statement? It was basically a tribute to Justice Ginsburg. I'm sure Justice Kagan agreed with it. But when four Justices join a statement respecting the denial of cert, that suggests there are four votes to grant in the future. Justice Kagan's decision to sit out gave Justice Kavanaugh a lane to join.

The past few weeks have been very sleepy. The Court has issued a string of unanimous decisions in relatively unimportant cases. A storm is brewing for the end of the term. Will it be Red June? Or more likely, Purple June?

See the original post here:

Let's talk about Justice Kavanaugh's vote in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System - Reason

Senior Trump Organization Official to Testify Before Grand Jury – The New York Times

A senior finance executive at Donald J. Trumps family business has testified before a state grand jury in Manhattan as prosecutors ramp up their investigation of Mr. Trump and his company, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The executive, Jeffrey McConney, has long served as the Trump Organizations controller, making him one of a handful of high-ranking executives to oversee the companys finances.

The testimony comes as the prosecutors have trained their focus on one of Mr. McConneys colleagues, Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organizations long-serving chief financial officer. The prosecutors, who are working for the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., have examined the extent to which Mr. Trump handed out valuable benefits to Mr. Weisselbergs family and whether taxes were paid on those perks, The New York Times has reported.

Mr. Vances office has mounted an aggressive effort to gain Mr. Weisselbergs cooperation against Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization, people with knowledge of that effort have said. When seeking to turn an insider into a cooperating witness, prosecutors often seek leverage over the person, including any evidence of past wrongdoing, and then typically offer leniency in exchange for testimony or assistance.

The decision to subpoena Mr. McConney, who has worked at the company for nearly 35 years, suggests that the examination of Mr. Weisselbergs conduct has reached a new phase, with the grand jury hearing evidence about him.

Under state law, witnesses such as Mr. McConney who appear before the grand jury are granted immunity on the subject of their testimony. They cannot exercise their Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves. (If they lie, they still can be prosecuted for perjury.)

A lawyer for Mr. McConney could not be reached for comment. Mary E. Mulligan, a lawyer for Mr. Weisselberg, declined to comment, as did the Trump Organization.

ABC News first reported that Mr. McConney had testified before the grand jury. Other witnesses have also been also been called to testify in recent days.

Mr. Vances office recently convened a special grand jury to hear evidence about Mr. Trump, Mr. Weisselberg and the Trump Organization, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. While Mr. Vances office was already using grand juries to issue subpoenas, obtain documents and hear some testimony, the new grand jury is expected to hear from a range of witnesses in the coming months and could eventually vote on an indictment.

There is, however, no indication that the investigation has reached such an advanced stage or that prosecutors have decided to seek charges against Mr. Trump or his company.

Mr. Trump, a Republican, has argued that the investigation is a politically motivated fishing expedition. A spokesman for Mr. Vance, a Democrat, declined to comment.

The investigation into Mr. Weisselberg centers on the valuable benefits that Mr. Trump provided him and his family over the years, including tens of thousands of dollars in private school tuition for at least one of Mr. Weisselbergs grandchildren, free apartments and leased cars, The Times has reported.

In general, those types of benefits are taxable although there are some exceptions and the prosecutors appear to be scrutinizing whether Mr. Weisselberg failed to pay those taxes.

More broadly, the investigation into the Trump Organization has focused on whether Mr. Trump and the company manipulated property values to obtain certain loans and tax benefits, among other potential financial crimes.

Earlier in the investigation, the prosecutors had focused on hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to two women who said they had affairs with Mr. Trump.

Mr. McConneys name surfaced in those early stages in a subpoena issued to the Trump Organization in August 2019. The prosecutors, seeking records related to the investigation into the hush money records, sought documents and communications involving a number of people, including Mr. McConney, Mr. Weisselberg and other Trump Organization employees.

Mr. McConney, 66, graduated from Baruch College in 1978 after studying accounting and finance, and joined the Trump Organization about a decade later.

He kept a low profile for years even as he rose to become the companys controller and a senior vice president. But during the 2016 presidential campaign, he appeared in news reports to answer questions about how Mr. Trumps charitable foundation was raising and spending its money.

Asked in September 2016 to account for why the foundation had donated $25,000 to a campaign group associated with a Florida prosecutor who was reportedly weighing an investigation into Trump University, Mr. McConney told The Washington Post, That was just a complete mess-up on names. Anything that could go wrong did go wrong.

See the original post:

Senior Trump Organization Official to Testify Before Grand Jury - The New York Times

Indicted on Healthcare Fraud Charges? 5 Things to Expect & 3 Potential Outcomes – JD Supra

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is cracking down on healthcare fraud, and many providers are finding themselves facing serious allegations. This includes criminal allegations in many cases. If these allegations lead to a conviction, not only can providers face Medicare and Medicaid exclusion, recoupments, fines, and other financial penalties, but they can face federal imprisonment as well.

When federal prosecutors at the DOJ believe they have sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges, their next step is usually to seek an indictment before a federal grand jury. While an indictment can ultimately lead to trial and the risk of conviction, there are several intermediate stepsand there are several opportunities for healthcare providers to seek favorable pre-trial resolutions.

An indictment is not a conviction. There are many possible ways to defend against federal healthcare fraud charges following an indictmentincluding ways that can result in a favorable pre-trial outcome. Dr. Nick Oberheiden, Founding Attorney of Oberheiden P.C.

What Happens After a Federal Indictment in a Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Case

In the federal criminal justice system, the purpose of empaneling a grand jury is to determine whether prosecutors have sufficient evidence to pursue charges. The grand jury hears the prosecutions evidence and determines whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an indictable crime. If the grand jury finds probable cause, the court will issue an indictment, and the case will be set on the path toward trial.

But, while some federal healthcare fraud cases go to trial, many are resolved during pre-trial proceedings. This can be achieved through either a plea bargain or a successful effort to have the charges dismissed. Following a healthcare fraud indictment, efforts to secure a plea bargain or dismissal should begin immediately. This requires defense counsel who are experienced in handling healthcare fraud cases at all phases of the federal criminal justice process. These phases are:

1. Arraignment

Following a federal indictment on healthcare fraud charges, the next formal step in the process is the arraignment, also referred to as the initial hearing. During an arraignment, the judge reads the charges against the defendant, asks the defendant to enter a plea, and determines whether the defendant will be released on bail or detained until trial.

As a defendant, entering the right plea (not guilty in virtually all cases) and successfully arguing for bail are essential at this stage. Your defense counsel can represent you in court during your arraignment; and, prior to your arraignment, you can (and should) work with your defense counsel to ensure that you know what to expect, what to say, and how your attorneys will argue for bail on your behalf.

2. Discovery

Criminal cases involve a discovery phase similar to civil litigation. However, prosecutors are limited in the information they can obtain, as criminal defendants cannot be forced to share any information that would result in a waiver of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. For defendants in healthcare fraud cases, making strategic use of the discovery phase can be essentialand it can often set the stage for subsequent plea deal negotiations or a motion to dismiss.

During discovery, federal prosecutors are required by law to disclose all evidence and other materials that they intend to use at trial. This includes exculpatory evidence (evidence which suggests that the defendant may be innocent). If prosecutors withhold or otherwise fail to disclose any material evidence, this can potentially support a motion to suppress, motion to dismiss, or motion for a new trial.

3. Preliminary Hearing

The preliminary hearing in a federal healthcare fraud case takes place while the parties are engaged in discovery. While it is often referred to as a mini trial, the rules for preliminary hearings are very different from those that apply to trials.

Prosecutors can introduce evidence that would not be admissible at trial, and the purpose of the preliminary hearing is to allow the presiding judge to determine whether the case should move forward.

A strategic and effective defense at the preliminary hearing phase can result in dismissal of the charges contained in the indictment. While prosecutors have a certain amount of leeway to present their case, defendants have significant opportunities at this stage as well. Even if a preliminary hearing does not result in a dismissal, it may still serve to expose flaws in the prosecutions case which suggest that a jury will not find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Plea Bargaining

By exposing flaws in the prosecutions case, defendants can set the stage for successful plea bargain negotiations in many cases. Healthcare fraud cases tend to be exceedingly complex; and, when prosecutors do not have clear evidence of guilt, they will often be open to considering deal terms that are favorable to the defendant. Even if prosecutors believe they have a strong case, they may be willing to negotiate a deal in order to conserve the DOJs resources and pursue other cases.

When pursuing plea deal negotiations, there are several important factors that healthcare providers need to consider. There are also several different types of plea deal negotiation strategies. Here, too, making informed decisions and communicating effectively with prosecutors requires highly-experienced federal healthcare fraud defense counsel.

5. Pre-Trial Motions and Trial

Prior to trial, defendants in federal healthcare fraud cases have the ability to file various types of motions. These pre-trial motions can serve a variety of purposes, including: (i) establishing leverage in plea deal negotiations, (ii) limiting the scope of the issues or the evidence that will be presented at trial, and (iii) having charges dismissed prior to trial. When filing pre-trial motions, defendants must be able to establish specific and discrete grounds for the arguments they are putting forth, as filing frivolous motions is not only ineffective and wasteful, but can potentially have adverse consequences.

If a healthcare fraud case is not resolved through a plea deal or pre-trial motion to dismiss, then the case will go to trial. The prosecution will present its case first; and, after it does so, the defendant will have an opportunity to file a motion arguing that the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. If this motion fails, defense counsel will then present the defendants case in chief; and, at the end of the trial proceedings, the jury (or the judge, in the case of a bench trial) will render a verdict.

Prosecutors and defendants can and often do negotiate plea deals during trial; and, if a federal healthcare fraud case goes to verdict and sentencing, this is not necessarily the end of the process. There are various grounds for filing appeals and petitions for post-conviction relief, and cases can go on for months, if not years, following trial if the circumstances warrant.

Potential Outcomes Following a Federal Indictment for Healthcare Fraud

In terms of potential outcomes following a federal indictment for healthcare fraud, there are three primary possibilities. These are: (i) pre-trial dismissal, (ii) plea deal, and (iii) trial.

1. Pre-Trial Dismissal

Securing a pre-trial dismissal is generally the best-case scenario following a federal grand jury indictment on healthcare fraud charges. If your case is dismissed, it will be over, and you will be able to return to devoting your full time and attention to running your healthcare business or practice. Potential grounds for seeking pre-trial dismissal in a healthcare fraud case include:

As you can see, these grounds are not based on innocence. Generally speaking, questions of guilt are reserved for the factfinder at trial. However, if there are procedural issues that warrant a not guilty verdict regardless of the facts at hand, then it may be possible to secure a pre-trial dismissal.

2. Plea Deal

Negotiating a plea deal affords the opportunity to avoid the uncertainty of trial. Deciding whether to pursue (and to accept) a plea deal requires a clear understanding of the relevant facts and the relevant lawand this requires experienced federal healthcare fraud defense counsel.

Under appropriate circumstances, negotiating a plea deal can facilitate a favorable outcome to a criminal healthcare fraud case. With that said, prior to approaching prosecutors about a possible plea deal, it is imperative to ensure that this is the best option you have available. If you have grounds to seek a pre-trial dismissal, negotiating a plea could result in unnecessary adverse consequences.

3. Trial

While going to trial is often viewed as a means of last resort, providers facing federal healthcare fraud allegations should not accept unfavorable plea deals solely for the purpose of avoiding trial. Experienced defense counsel will be able to approach trial strategically, fight for a not guilty verdict, and set the stage for post-trial practice if necessary.

Regardless of the circumstances involved, facing allegations of healthcare fraud is an extremely serious matter that requires a strategic and targeted defense. Providers facing these allegations need to engage experienced defense counsel promptly, and they must work with their attorneys to achieve a favorable resolution by all means available.

Read more from the original source:

Indicted on Healthcare Fraud Charges? 5 Things to Expect & 3 Potential Outcomes - JD Supra

FBI’s $86-million cash seizure in Beverly Hills sparks outcry – Los Angeles Times

When FBI agents asked for permission to rip hundreds of safe deposit boxes from the walls of a Beverly Hills business and haul them away, U.S. Magistrate Steve Kim set some strict limits on the raid.

The business, U.S. Private Vaults, had been charged in a sealed indictment with conspiring to sell drugs and launder money. Its customers had not.

So the FBI could seize the boxes themselves, Kim decided, but had to return what was inside to the owners.

This warrant does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety deposit boxes, Kims March 17 seizure warrant declared.

Yet the FBI is now trying to confiscate $86 million in cash and millions of dollars more in jewelry and other valuables that agents found in 369 of the boxes.

Prosecutors claim the forfeiture is justified because the unnamed box holders were engaged in criminal activity. They have disclosed no evidence to support the allegation.

Box holders and their lawyers denounced the ploy as a brazen abuse of forfeiture laws, saying prosecutors and the FBI were trampling on the rights of people who thought theyd found a safe place to stash confidential documents, heirlooms, gold, rare coins and cash.

If the FBI wanted to search the boxes, the lawyers say, it first needed to meet the standard for a court-issued warrant: Probable cause that evidence of specific crimes would be found.

The government cant take stuff without evidence in the hopes that youre going to get it later, said Benjamin Gluck, an attorney who represents box holders suing the government to retrieve their property. The 4th Amendment and the forfeiture laws require the opposite that you have the evidence first, and then you can take property.

Subscribers get early access to this story

Were offering L.A. Times subscribers first access to our best journalism. Thank you for your support.

Forfeiture laws enable the government to confiscate assets tied to criminal activity. The generally low standard of proof makes it an appealing tool for prosecutors, who in criminal trials must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

FBI spokeswoman Laura Eimiller referred questions to the U.S. attorneys office in Los Angeles.

A video screen capture taken from U.S. District Court documents shows agents during the raid of U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills

(U.S. District Court)

Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the office, denied the government was misusing its powers by trying to confiscate box holders belongings.

We have some basis to believe that the items are related to criminal activity, he said.

In general, Mrozek said, a number of factors would lead the FBI to pursue forfeiture of the boxes contents such as large stacks of cash kept by a person with a criminal record or no known source of income.

Possession of cash in any amount is legal.

Beyond the $86 million in cash, the FBI is seeking to confiscate thousands of gold and silver bars, Patek Philippe and Rolex watches, and gem-studded earrings, bracelets and necklaces, many of them in felt or velvet pouches. The FBI also wants to take a box holders $1.3 million in poker chips from the Aria casino in Las Vegas.

The money and goods are among the contents of about 800 safe deposit boxes the FBI seized in late March during a five-day raid of the U.S. Private Vaults store in an Olympic Boulevard strip mall known for its kosher vegan Thai restaurant.

Federal agents spent five days in late March searching the U.S. Private Vaults store where customers stored valuables in roughly 800 safe deposit boxes. A magistrate authorized the FBIs seizure of the stores business equipment for a drugs and money laundering investigation, but barred searches of the boxes contents.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

The FBI has returned the contents of about 75 boxes and plans to give back the items found in at least 175 more, because there was no evidence of criminality, Mrozek said. Federal agents have not determined who owns what was stored in many other boxes.

The indictment says U.S. Private Vaults marketed itself to attract criminals who wanted to store valuables anonymously and keep tax authorities at bay. An owner and a manager of U.S. Private Vaults were involved in drug sales, it says, and co-conspirators helped customers convert cash into gold to evade government suspicion.

Among those ensnared in the governments dragnet was Joseph Ruiz, who lost his life savings in the raid: $57,000 in cash. An unemployed food service worker who lives near Crenshaw Boulevard and the 10 Freeway, Ruiz, 47, distrusts banks and sees world affairs as deeply unstable, so he kept his money at U.S. Private Vaults.

He obtained the money in two legal settlements, one for a spinal injury in a car accident and another for chronic housing code violations in his apartment building, Ruiz said.

The FBI seized it, rejected his requests to return it and is now moving to confiscate it without explanation.

They just kind of stole my money, said Ruiz, whose most recent job was at Gate Gourmet, an airline caterer.

When he stopped by U.S. Private Vaults during the FBI raid to claim his money, Ruiz said, a federal agent asked if he belonged to a drug cartel.

Im made out to be a criminal, and I didnt do anything, said Ruiz, the son of a retired Los Angeles police officer. Im a law-abiding citizen.

Ruiz has joined Jennifer and Paul Snitko, a Pacific Palisades couple who kept jewelry and baptism certificates in their U.S. Private Vaults box, in filing a class-action complaint against Tracy L. Wilkison, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, and Kristi Koons Johnson, who heads the FBIs L.A. field office.

It is one of 11 suits filed by box holders that seek the return of their property and court orders declaring the seizures unconstitutional.

They throw people like Joseph into this upside-down world where they did nothing wrong, but theyre forced to come forward to litigate against the government just to get their property back and prove their own innocence, said Robert Frommer, an attorney for Ruiz and the Snitkos.

Frommer is a senior attorney at the libertarian Institute for Justice in Virginia, where he specializes in challenging government forfeitures.

Forfeiture is a controversial tool used heavily in recent decades by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide. Proponents say it deters crime with the threat that cash, cars and other property acquired illegally, or used for illicit purposes, might be confiscated.

Critics, however, say it is often abused by police and prosecutors who can seize peoples property even if they lack evidence to prove their guilt in a criminal trial. Many jurisdictions have faced accusations of excessive use of forfeiture to fund law enforcement operations.

From 2000 to 2019, forfeitures generated $46 billion for the federal government, an Institute for Justice report found.

Robert Frommer, a senior attorney at the libertarian Institute for Justice, represents Robert Ruiz, left, in a class-action suit against the U.S. government to retrieve cash and valuables seized by the FBI from safe deposit boxes at U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills.

(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)

In the U.S. Private Vaults case, the FBIs May 20 notice of forfeiture against 369 safe deposit boxes marked a major escalation of what was already a raw display of power by the FBI and U.S. attorneys office in Los Angeles.

This definitely doesnt smell good, said former federal prosecutor David B. Smith, the author of Prosecution and Defense of Forfeiture Cases. They cant say, you show me this is legitimate money thats not the law, and no judge is going to let them do that.

The FBI is trying to confiscate $86 million in cash and millions of dollars in jewelry and other valuables that it seized from 386 safe deposit boxes that a magistrate ordered the government not to search at U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Box holders who fail to claim their property in the next few weeks will automatically lose it. Those who challenge the confiscation have two choices.

One route is to concede that the FBI has a right to take their money or valuables and request return of at least a portion. The other is to contest the forfeiture by June 24, which would require the government to show evidence in court linking the property to crime. The risk of high legal fees often deters people from filing claims.

Jeffrey B. Isaacs, an attorney for box holders, said prosecutors were trying to extort people into exposing their identities in order to investigate them. Its unprecedented, and I think its very dangerous, he said.

In their lawsuits, box holders claim the FBI is forcing them to give up either their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures or their Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves.

The governments intent all along, their lawyers say, was to search every box in defiance of the magistrates warrants for evidence against the customers.

From the start, the raid on U.S. Private Vaults posed challenges for the FBI.

The case that agents built against the business appeared to offer ample grounds for a court to authorize seizure of the companys computers, security cameras and other business equipment including the hundreds of safe deposit boxes lining its walls.

In seeking warrants for the raid, prosecutors and FBI agents acknowledged they had no legal power to search each box for evidence of crimes. They assured the magistrate they would not overstep constitutional limits.

The warrants authorize the seizure of the nests of the boxes themselves, not their contents, FBI agent Lynne Zellhart told Kim, underlining not in her sworn statement requesting search and seizure warrants. By seizing the nests of safety deposit boxes, the government will necessarily end up with custody of what is inside those boxes initially.

A video screen capture taken from U.S. District Court documents shows an agent open a sealed envelope that appears to contain coins during the raid of U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills.

(U.S. District Court)

Zellhart vowed the FBI would make a careful record of each boxs contents, following its written inventory policies to protect the government against claims of theft or damage and to ensure nothing hazardous was stored.

She told the magistrate that agents would inspect the property as necessary to identify the owner and preserve the property for safekeeping. Under FBI policy, she wrote, the inspection should extend no further than necessary to determine ownership.

The FBIs legal handbook for agents describes inventory searches as a caretaking function. Agents must not use them as a ruse for a general rummaging to find evidence of crimes, the Supreme Court has ruled.

They are allowed to seize contraband or evidence that can clearly lead to the apprehension and conviction of a suspect for a specific crime. Fentanyl, OxyContin, and guns were found in boxes at U.S. Private Vaults, according to the FBI.

Still, Gluck said a 44-minute video inventory of FBI agents rifling through the box of an 80-year-old client puts the lie to the governments promises to the magistrate. In the first minute, he said in court papers, agents hold up a document with the womans contact information to the camera, then go on to open a series of sealed envelopes and carefully photograph every page and Post-It note in the box.

In addition, he said, the FBIs chaotic and slapdash inventory of her valuables neglected to include $75,000 in gold coins that she has now sued to recover.

The government, which returned everything else she said was in her box, disputes the claim of missing coins, Mrozek said. At least two FBI agents were present for all box inspections, which were each photographed or videotaped, he added.

We think that weve done the best job possible in accounting for all of the items, he said.

Drug-sniffing dogs at the store during the raid alerted to traces of drugs on most of the money found in boxes, FBI agent Justin Palmerton claimed in a court statement. The boxes containing that cash are subject to criminal investigation, he said.

The reliability of dogs sniffing cash for drug residue is a longtime source of court disputes.

A dog alert alone is insufficient evidence of a drug crime to warrant forfeiture of cash, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1994. The court cited testimony that 75% of the currency circulating in Los Angeles was tainted with cocaine or other illegal drugs.

The cash the government is trying to confiscate was taken from 353 boxes in amounts ranging from $5,000 to $2 million, according to the FBI. Mrozek declined to say if any of the allegations of criminal activity were based solely on dog alerts.

Daniel Paluch, 38, was living near the U.S. Private Vaults store a couple years ago when he decided it would be a good spot to store his passport, Social Security card, vaccination records and a few family treasures.

A week after the raid, he told assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Brown, who is prosecuting U.S. Private Vaults, that he was eager to recover a bracelet his grandmother hid from the Nazis during her internment at Majdanek concentration camp.

It will be difficult for my family and me to stomach damage or loss of most of the items in my box, Paluch wrote in an email.

Brown responded: Please rest assured that the contents of your box are safe and secure, and that we want to return all legitimately held items to their rightful owners. He told Paluch the FBI was vetting all box holders claims and urged him to gather records on the items he stored.

Paluch, a Century City lawyer, had no receipt for the bracelet. He told Brown he was at a bit of a loss as to what records I need to get it back. He requested a copy of the warrant agents had used to seize his property and of the receipt for what was taken both standard documents in any government search.

Brown replied that Paluch was not entitled to a copy of the warrant served on U.S. Private Vaults and that he would need to plead his case to the FBI.

I was not offering to be a liaison between you and the FBI, Brown wrote. My suggestion that you gather relevant records was mere common sense. I do not know what procedures the FBI will employ to vet claims; your ideas are as good as mine.

The FBI ultimately returned Paluchs valuables. But like Ruiz, he felt violated. While he has nothing to hide, he said, I dont like the governments magnifying glass being on me.

They went on a fishing expedition, Paluch said. They painted us all with this broad brush as criminals.

Times Staff Writer Maloy Moore contributed to this report.

Read this article:

FBI's $86-million cash seizure in Beverly Hills sparks outcry - Los Angeles Times

Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, 6/4/21 – MSNBC

Summary

The Republican Party pushing the big lie of Donald Trump that the election was stolen and making it the party`s policy. Russia`s Vladimir Putin even says the Capitol riot was legitimate. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA) in interviewed and answers questions regarding the new policy of the Republican Party which is pushing the big lie of Donald Trump. The United States added 559,000 new jobs last month. The unemployment rate dropped below 6 percent for the first time since the start of the pandemic going from 6.1 percent to 5.8 percent as more Americans get vaccinated and states relax COVID restrictions.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Thanks for being with us on this Friday night. That`s going to do it for us for now, but I will see you again here on Monday night. Now it`s time for "The Last Word" where the great Ali Velshi in for Lawrence tonight. Good evening, Ali.

ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: Good to see you, my friend. Have yourself an excellent weekend and we will see you next week.

MADDOW: I will do. Thank you, Ali.

VELSHI: Well, breaking tonight in the criminal investigation of Donald Trump, "The New York Times" reports that a senior finance executive at the Trump Organization has testified before the grand jury impaneled by the Manhattan District Attorney`s Office.

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston will join us later to discuss what this means for defendant Trump. But first, Donald Trump is a weakened man. No longer in office, no longer protected by presidential immunity.

But while the man himself has been diminished, his anti-Democratic ideas are gaining strength, and that should worry all of us. Donald Trump`s lie about the election continues to spread because it`s not just Donald Trump`s lie anymore. It is a lie backed by the Republican Party.

The GOP is a party dedicated to one man right now and to that one man`s lies. But they`re not just repeating the lies. They`re acting on the lies. It is now harder to vote in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and almost a dozen other states because Republicans are making policy based on Trump`s lie.

The Brennan Center for Justice reports "between January 1st and May 14th, 2021, Republicans had at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the vote. And at least 61 bills with restrictive provisions are moving through 18 state legislatures."

In states like Texas, Republicans are even trying to make it easier to overturn elections. And the bogus fraudit in Arizona has inspired Republicans in other states to demand similar recounts, including in Pennsylvania.

We`ll discuss that soon with Democratic Congresswoman Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania. The Republican Party is causing long-term damage to our democracy all because it wants to keep power and please a megalomaniacal former president. Here`s the voting rights attorney Marc Elias.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARC ELIAS, FOUNDER, DEMOCRACY DOCKET: The big lie has moved from a political category, something that Trump and his allies were saying for political purposes, and it is now turning into a pillar of the state. It is becoming a part of state policy and that`s really dangerous.

And one of the ways it`s doing it is through these audits because it is giving the veneer of officialness. They`re being done through state legislatures, through state officials. And it is allowing the big lie to have the imprimatur of the state.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: Today, federal prosecutors said they expect to charge at least 550 people for their roles in the Capitol insurrection. But what`s the message that we are sending to those insurrectionists when Trump`s big lie has been given, as Marc Elias said, the imprimatur of the state by senate Republicans who voted against the commission to learn about the truth on that horrible day?

We cannot rely on institutions and norms to save us. Did we learn that after four years of Trump? Just because Trump is out of office doesn`t mean that everything goes back to the way it was before. The January 6th commission vote is proof of that. The rights of voters are being weakened all the time.

But some say the Democrats won`t take action because they want to preserve an institution like the undemocratic filibuster. Is that how institutions are supposed to work? Facebook is banning Donald Trump until January 2023, just in time for him to run for re-election if he so chooses.

Is that how institutions are supposed to work? Republicans who know better are allowing Trump`s lies to poison minds just because they want to remain in power. Is that how institutions are supposed to work? American democracy must be saved, but it`s not going to be saved by the so-called institutions, not when one party doesn`t play by the rules that those institutions lay out. Institutions failed us for the last four years under Trump. They are not going to save us now. The question is, what will?

Leading off our discussion tonight, Democratic Congresswoman Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania. She is a member of the House Judiciary Committee. She served as a House Impeachment Manager in the second impeachment of Donald Trump. Also joining us tonight, Professor Eddie Glaude, Jr., the chairman of African American Studies at Princeton University. Eddie is an MSNBC contributor. Good evening to both of you.

Congresswoman Dean, I want to play for you what the attorney general of the state that you and I share, of Pennsylvania said to Rachel just a short time ago talking about the connection between what`s going on in Arizona and what`s going on in other states, including Pennsylvania. Let`s listen to Josh Shapiro.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH SHAPIRO, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don`t think we can just simply dismiss these folks as fringe. This is who the modern GOP is, certainly who the modern GOP is here in Pennsylvania. Heck, one of those three people who went down there is the leading Republican candidate for governor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: And he`s talking about somebody who`s running for governor in Pennsylvania. This has now moved from fringe into mainstream, and it is definitely looking like policy of the GOP. You`ve been up close and personal with this in the impeachment. What do we do about this now?

REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): Well, number one, I`m delighted to be with you, and professor, I`m delighted to be with you. I have to tell you that your book graces my coffee table and it`s heavily marked up. Josh Shapiro is a friend of mine. He`s my mentor. He served in the Pennsylvania House and I had the honor of serving in the Pennsylvania House in his very seat for six and a half years, so I know the Pennsylvania legislature and those legislators very, very well.

Attorney General Shapiro said it very, very well. We`re at a moment of just trying to figure out whether we want to rely upon truth or lies. You know, democracy is not about certainty, it`s about possibility. And so what we have to decide is whether or not we will stand behind the truth and search for the truth as we did today with Mr. McGahn in front of the judiciary committee, or we allow these elected leaders, would-be leaders, to continue the big lie.

I reject the big lie. I think it`s extraordinarily dangerous and for the Pennsylvania Republican legislators who went down Arizona to take a look at the Cyber Ninja fraud of an audit, shame on them. Sadly, I hear they know no shame.

VELSHI: Professor Glaude, I echo the congresswoman`s sentiments. Reading your material makes us a whole lot smarter. This big lie thing which a lot of people thought was sort of done with or maybe behind us isn`t.

Today, Vladimir Putin actually commented on the insurrectionists. He said, "These are not looters or thieves. These people came with political requests," which is just one different from what Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia said. He said, "There was no insurrection. It was a normal tourist visit." This is the problem. It gets said, it gets repeated, and to some people in America and around the world, it sounds like the truth.

EDDIE GLAUDE, JR., CHAIR, AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDIES, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Well, thank you, Ali, and Congresswoman Dean for your kind remarks about my work. But let`s be clear. We have to understand what the shorthand big lie represents. It`s not just simply that the election was stolen, but it`s how the election was stolen, right.

Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, right? It`s about black and brown voters in Arizona. It`s about young voters, right? And so the big lie is really about this browning of America. There`s a through line from January 6th to the voting laws passed around the country, to anti -- to the violence against Asian-Americans, to the anti-immigration -- to immigration debate.

Some people want us to go back to the Immigration Act of 1924, which was basically constructed by the Klan. So the true lies that there is this deep paranoia about the country becoming, right, a multi-racial democracy. And until we are honest about that, it`s easy to displace it onto Trump.

But Trump is just an avatar for an overwhelming sense that some people feel like they`re being replaced. That`s the big lie. And we need to name it, I think, because it has historical precedent.

VELSHI: Congresswoman Dean, the question of the institutions on which we can rely, we have tried this. You led -- you were part of a team that led the impeachment of Donald Trump. We tried to get a commission to look into January 6th, a bipartisan commission. What Marc Elias was saying is worrisome, the idea that these audits, these fringe audits, these fraudulent audits now have the stamp of being a tool of the state.

It would become normal in places like Texas to be able to have the legislature overturn the will of the people if the will of the people is not what the legislature wants it to be. It worries some people that where does this end and how does it end?

DEAN: It worries me. It`s infectious. We`re seeing it spread across the country in Republican legislatures, again, with highly elected officials continuing the big lie. I`ve that had debate on the floor of the House. It`s quite toxic to talk to Republican legislators who still can`t say that this was a free and fair election, that the courts and the rule of law matters.

I keep thinking back to the funeral of John Lewis where we heard from President Barack Obama. And he talked about democracy is a fragile thing. It`s not a certainty. Democracy is not a certainty. I think maybe for decades we kind of thought it was. It was a given. And Barack Obama talked about we must tend to it.

Democracy is not a certainty, it is a possibility. And until we tell the truth about ourselves as Baldwin argued, as you write in your book, until we tell the truth about ourselves, we`re in danger of succumbing to these lies.

VELSHI: So, Eddie, as you have studied these things both historically and in the current context, what looks like success to you on this front? Is it what we saw in Georgia, a grassroots movement which told people they are trying to take your vote away, they cannot do that under law and under this constitution, but they`re trying to, so you have to fight back, you have to tend to democracy by ensuring that your ballot is cast. Is that what this going to look like, a battle between people who insist on having their vote and those who would try and shut them down?

GLAUDE: Absolutely. It`s going to be a battle, Ali for those who are committed to democracy against those who aren`t. And we need to understand that battle as such. And, you know, it seems to me that someone needs to walk directly to Senator Joe Manchin`s office, Senator Kyrsten Sinema`s office and give them a copy of the letter from the Birmingham jail.

They need to figure out what their positions are, right, because right now we need to ask them, what is your position on the John Lewis Act? What is your position on the For the People Act? We need to understand why are they in some ways hiding behind the institution and not in some ways defending democracy?

And I have a sneaking suspicion, Ali, and you can tell me if I`m wrong, that they are actually providing cover because we should hear a chorus of Democrats, right, asking them this question. We should hear a chorus of Democrats demanding, right, that Sinema and Manchin come out and support what we`re trying to do in terms of definitive democracy.

But I would suggest this, that perhaps our problem isn`t just the Republican Party. Our problem is an ideological frame that in some ways limits how we think of this country as a generally multiracial democracy.

VELSHI: Congresswoman Dean, I want to ask you. I know that you are a member of the Judiciary Committee. You were there to hear testimony from Don McGahn today. Chairman Nadler made the following statement.

He said, "Mr. McGahn testified at length to an extremely dangerous period in our nation`s history in which President Trump increasingly unhinged and fearful of his own liability attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation at every turn. Mr. McGahn was clearly distressed by President Trump`s refusal to follow his legal advice again and again and he shed new light on several troubling events today."

I know I can`t tell us some things that happen behind closed doors, but what can you characterize for us?

DEAN: A couple of sayings. Number one, this was a good day for democracy. Long time in the coming. You know that we subpoenaed him, the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed him in April of 2019. But here we finally came to the point where we were able to continue our co-equal branch of government, our oversight responsibility.

I found Mr. McGahn to be forthcoming. Certainly, the testimony that he went through was troubling. He brought to life volume two and his part on in volume two of the Mueller report, the extraordinary chaos in that White House.

The pressure on him over and over again by a president in a panic over Special Counsel Mueller`s investigation of Russia`s interference in the election, Russia`s work with or without his campaign, extraordinary pressure about obstructing justice or attempts to obstruct justice.

Asking over and over that Mr. McGahn talk to Rod Rosenstein and direct him to oust Mueller as special counsel. It tells me a lot. Number one, that again, democracy is fragile. We are a co-equal branch of government. We were able to perform our duties in part today, but I hope that with urgency, we will face reform.

I have a bill that was actually introduced by a Republican, Darrell Issa, two Congresses ago which would expedite subpoenas so that we would never go through this nonsense of almost 2-1/2 years before judiciary could do its oversight responsibility and be able to enforce our subpoenas.

So, I will say that I think this was a good day for democracy. A restoration of our co-equal branch of government, of our jurisdiction as members of judiciary, to oversee the extraordinary wrongdoing of a rogue administration.

VELSHI: Well, in the interest of leaving the conversation on a good note then, if you`ve said it`s been a good day for democracy, we shall end there. Congresswoman Madeleine Dean, thank you for joining us. Professor Eddie Glaude, always a pleasure to see you, my friend. Thank you for joining us as well.

Coming up, breaking news in the criminal investigation into Donald Trump and his business. Prosecutors subpoenaed a high-ranking financial officer. Joyce Vance and David Cay Johnston join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: Breaking news in the criminal investigation into Donald Trump. The "New York Times" reports that a senior finance executive at the Trump Organization has testified before the grand jury impaneled by the Manhattan District Attorney to decide whether to indict Donald Trump, executives at his company, or the business itself.

That executive is Jeffrey McConney who the "Times" explains "has long served as the Trump Organization`s controller, making him one of a handful of high-ranking executives to oversee the company`s finances."

This comes as prosecutors have ramped up pressure on Trump`s longtime accountant, Allen Weisselberg to cooperate with their investigation. The "Times" reports, "The decision to subpoena Mr. McConney who has worked at the company for nearly 35 years suggests that the examination of Mr. Weisselberg`s conduct has reached a new phase."

Joining us now, Joyce Vance, former United States attorney and a professor at the University Of Alabama School Of Law. She is an MSNBC legal contributor. And David Cay Johnston, Pulitzer prize-winning investigative reporter. He`s done extensive reporting on Trump`s finances. He`s the author of "The Making of Donald Trump."

Welcome to both of you. Good to see you. Let`s start with you, David. You know ins and outs of Trump and the organization and the people who worked for him. This is not a name, McConney that a lot of our viewers will be familiar with. It is still a new and an emerging name. Who is this guy?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, AUTHOR, THE MAKING OF DONALD TRUMP: Well, this is a very small organization that Donald Trump runs at the top. And directly under Donald is his finance guy, Allen Weisselberg, who knows where all the bodies are buried and all the money is. And right beneath him is Jeffrey McConney.

And that he has come before the grand jury, which under New York law means he has immunity for anything he testified about, transactional immunity, indicates that they are trying very hard to flip Allen Weisselberg because that`s where he would be most helpful to them in all likelihood, is what did Allen Weisselberg knows, which is everything.

And it will be much easier to make a case, whether it`s a garden variety tax case or, as I believe is likely, a New York State racketeering charge.

VELSHI: Let me ask, let`s go a little deeper into this, Joyce, this transactional immunity. "The New York Times" reporting that "Under state law, witnesses such as Mr. McConney who appear before the grand jury are granted immunity on the subject of their testimony. They cannot exercise their Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds that they may incriminate themselves." Tell me what that means and why that is significant to this testimony.

JOYCE VANCE, MSNBC LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: This is different from federal grand jury practice and it`s really important in this situation because it means that McConney testified in the grand jury without the ability to assert a Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. He already had immunity. He had no further risk.

The problem that he faced in that setting, though, was if he failed to answer truthfully, he could be prosecuted down the road for perjury. And of course we know that Cy Vance has at least eight years of Trump`s tax records and underlying documentation, so it`s possible that Mr. McConney was asked to explain much of that paperwork, effectively putting him in a box.

And here`s why it matters. McConney, it looks like, is not the target for prosecution here. Possible that he has a deal with prosecutors already and that he`s cooperating, you know, but this is clearly a tightly knit corporation and one can imagine how awkward it would be to be cooperating and then to go into work the next day.

So prosecutors are looking up the chain here. They`re looking at Allen Weisselberg. It`s possible that McConney had testimony to offer directly about perhaps one of the Trump children or the former president himself. But this is all building up so prosecutors are able to take a hard look at the people who they believe are most culpable for whatever criminal conduct may have occurred.

VELSHI: So, that`s good question, David. The culpability. To some degree, McConney`s been with Trump for a long time, so has Weisselberg. Weisselberg was with Trump`s father. These people are loyal or have been in the past loyal to Donald Trump. You often point out that loyalty with Donald Trump only goes one way. He`ll throw anybody under the bus if it suits him.

So what do they have that would cause McConney to talk? Is it just the idea that this guy has seen how the business runs for more than three decades and can explain that to them and tell them what Weisselberg probably knows or saw?

JOHNSTON: Well, I`d say there`s a high likelihood the prosecutors have something on McConney that is unrelated to the testimony they need for the case they`re trying to build, the Trump organization and some others. So, being around Donald Trump for a long time, there`s a fairly high likelihood that he is engaged in some other kind of behavior that gave the Manhattan prosecutors some leverage on him apart from the testimony he`s given that he has transactional immunity for.

This is a man who`s been with Donald longer than I`ve known him, and I`ve known Donald for 33 years, so he has a long track record with him. And Donald mentioned him in one of his books as the guy who was to check invoices to make sure Donald wasn`t being cheated.

There`s pretty good evidence that Donald has been cheated out of lots of money over various deals over the years. And that also make me wonder about what it was that got the prosecutors to feel confident that granting transactional immunity to McConney was going to be useful to building their case.

VELSHI: Joyce, you and I probably talk about this case about once a week. And our viewers, who probably have, you know, a better legal knowledge than I do, are probably curious as about as to where we are in this process. From your reckoning, where is this in the process? Do they just keep on gathering evidence until they have enough to either move forward with or decline to do anything with?

VANCE: That`s really the point that prosecutors are at here. They`re looking towards making a prosecutive decision. Do they go? Do they decide there is some sort of an evidentiary failure or maybe even that they just can`t find any crimes that were committed?

But this special grand jury that Vance has summoned goes through November. It can be extended, and as a prosecutor you`re often not working on the clock. You don`t set an artificial deadline. You just keep investigating to the point where you`re confident that you either have sufficient evidence to indict or you realize you`re at a dead end where you can`t.

But this grand jury was summoned after an intensive investigation of a lot of financial paperwork, tax paperwork, and now they`re talking to the controller, the guy who knows the day-to-day operations. It looks like they`re getting ready to go.

VELSHI: Thank you to both of you for spending some time with us this evening. Joyce Vance and David Cay Johnston.

Coming up, today`s jobs report showed good news as America climbs out of the pandemic recession. But Republicans claim that relief funds that helped people survive this last year are hurting businesses because workers do not want to accept low-wage jobs. Imagine that. Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein responds to that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VELSHI: The United States added 559,000 new jobs last month. The unemployment rate dropped below 6 percent for the first time since the start of the pandemic going from 6.1 percent to 5.8 percent as more Americans get vaccinated and states relax COVID restrictions.

It was the fifth straight month of job creation. Today President Biden praised the news but urged caution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: America is finally on the move again. As we continue this recovery, we`re going to hit some bumps along the way. Of course that`ll happen.

We can`t reboot the world`s largest economy like flipping on a light switch. There`s going to be ups and downs, and jobs and economic reports, but we`re going to be a supply chain issues and place pressures on the way back to stability and steady growth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELSHI: I spoke earlier today with Jared Bernstein, a member of the president`s Council of Economic Advisers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VELSHI: Jared, good to see you. Thank you for being with us. When we look at these job creation numbers that we saw today for the month of May, it was short of what a number of economists had expected it to be. And you know, you were one of those economists at one time making these predictions based on analysis and data about how many jobs would be created. So a good number, it was strong job creation but short of what was expected. How do you explain that?

JARED BERNSTEIN, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: I think we`re in the midst of an historic labor market recovery. I think you really have to recognize that forecasting any numbers right now, especially in the job market and especially these volatile monthly numbers is pretty much impossible.

So, therefore, you really have to look at the underlying trend. Over the past four months, since President Biden took office, this labor market has added 2 million jobs to payrolls. That`s an underlying pace of 540,000 jobs per month. There is no administration that had an opening four months like that in terms of job gains.

We saw the unemployment rate tick down three-tenths of a percent to the lowest rate we`ve seen since before the pandemic. Over 400,000 people moved out of long-term unemployment a decline there, which is very welcome.

I think very importantly you don`t always see these two together -- we`re seeing the strong labor demand met by people coming into the job market and getting some wage bumps. And that`s also really important to the residents in that big White House behind me.

Joe Biden has long believed that if a labor market isn`t generating paycheck gains for working class people, there`s a problem. And so we do this as a very important indicator that we are solidly on a good track here.

VELSHI: So wage bumps are what most people care about, right? Obviously getting a job is the most important but if you`re employed and the unemployment rate goes down, it generally puts pressure on wages to go up.

We`ve seen among a subset of workers called the average hourly earnings of private sector production and nonsupervisory employees. That was up 14 cents to $25.60 an hour in America.

I guess my question is, when folks are saying that there are people who are not taking jobs because of the $300 a month federal benefit, a supplement to unemployment insurance, you add $300 to $300, you get $600 a week, that`s $15 an hour and yet we`re seeing average wages at $25 an hour.

Read more:

Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 6/4/21 - MSNBC

Is buying cryptocurrency investing or gambling? Here’s how to tell the difference – USA TODAY

Peter Dunn, Special to USA TODAY Published 12:01 a.m. ET June 9, 2021 | Updated 8:13 a.m. ET June 9, 2021

From Dogecoin to Bitcoin to Coinbase, cryptocurrency is the hottest trend in investing right now. Heres what you need to know before buying in. USA TODAY

Dear Pete,

I'm one of the lucky ones. I invested very little money, and now own cryptocurrency worth more than $350,000. I'm 30 years old, I rent, and I don't have much in savings or retirement investments other than my crypto. I'm really struggling as to what to do next. I don't know whether to keep going, or to take the $350,000 and do something more practical with it. Am I foolish to just let it ride?

Mason, Chicago

You do realize "let it ride" is a gambling term, right? While you might think I've unfairly targeted one throwaway phrase in your email, it's the blurred line between gambling and investing which makes cryptocurrency so confounding.

Too many people believe investingisgambling. As it turns out, investing is not gambling. Is risk involved? Yes. Is reward involved? Yes. Is investing a game of chance? Well, that depends on your investing strategy.

I've always believed a person can earn the right to take additional investing risks by creating underlying financial stability in their life, such as an emergency fund, properly funded retirement strategy and wiping out consumer debt. It's tough to accomplish this level of stability when your entire net worth is tied-up in something as volatile as crypto.

The primary difference between gambling and investing is an investor will use tools of diversification to mitigate risks and decrease the chance for loss. A gambler is typically all-in with a singular lever dictating whether they win or lose. And even if you hold different types of cryptocurrency, the use of a single asset class means you aren't mitigating risk through asset allocation and diversification.

Cryptocurrency, explained:How does bitcoin even work?

Investors have very specific goals around rate of return, time horizon, and risk tolerance itself. Additionally, investors generally have specific goals for specific accounts whether the money is meant for retirement, college, or some other time-determined event. Gamblers primary goals revolve around winning the bet, without any additional structural elements or constraint.

The strangest reality about the intersection of investing and gambling is the same asset can theoretically be either an investment or a gamble. It's the strategy and planning behind the asset which decide whether or not you're gambling.

Gambling is exciting. Investing, when done well, is really boring. I, too, am tired of reading/hearing quotes from the great investing gurus of our time, but Warren Buffett wasn't wrong when he warned, "Beware the investment activity that produces applause; the great moves are usually greeted by yawns."

Don't make your decision so binary. There is no inherent "all or nothing" moment here. You can take money off the table and do something less speculative with it.

I've always believed a person can earn the right to take additional investing risks by creating underlying financial stability in their life. For instance, a healthy emergency fund, a properly funded retirement strategy, and the absence of consumer debt make investing excess funds in speculative vehicles much more tolerable. It's tough to accomplish this level of stability when your entire net worth is tied-up in something as volatile as crypto.

Consider using some of the value of your crypto holdings to create more conventional stability. By doing that, you allow the rest of your crypto holdings to become less of a gamble and more of a specific investing strategy. You'll still have the theoretical upside of crypto, but you'll also have a more reliable base to your financial planning strategy.

If you do sell any cryptocurrency, be sure to account for taxes. Unfortunately, a gaggle of crypto investors are going to learn an incredibly harsh lesson when they don't consider the tax obligations they hold to the IRS.

The price of bitcoin fell below $50,000 Thursday morning after Tesla CEO Elon Musk tweeted a day earlier that the electric car maker would stop accepting the digital currency as payment for its vehicles. (May 13) AP Domestic

You need to come to terms with the FOMO (fear of missing out) which inevitably comes with switching from a speculative investing strategy to a more prudent investing strategy. You can't forever measure your decision to diversify with an open-ended timeline that would otherwise allow your previous speculative investments to swing wildly, if not higher. That will be the temptation in all of this. If you were to diversify and then your previous investments shot up like a rocket, you'll feel like you failed. You didn't fail. That's FOMO, and it's as old as investing itself.

One additional note: If you do sell any cryptocurrency, be sure to account for taxes. Unfortunately, a gaggle of crypto investors are going to learn an incredibly harsh lesson when they don't consider the tax obligations they hold to the IRS.

Colonial Pipeline hack:Majority of $4.4 million cryptocurrency ransom payment recovered

Peter Dunn is an author, speaker and radio host, and he has a free podcast: "Million Dollar Plan." Have a question for Pete the Planner? Email him at AskPete@petetheplanner.com. The views and opinions expressed in this column are the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of USA TODAY.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2021/06/09/cryptocurrency-investing-vs-gambling/7606108002/

Originally posted here:

Is buying cryptocurrency investing or gambling? Here's how to tell the difference - USA TODAY