Monthly Archives: January 2022

RELIST WATCH ByJohn Elwood on Jan 12, 2022 at 3:35 pm

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

At this Fridays conference, the Supreme Court will vote to grant the last cases that will be argued this term (barring expedited briefing on some emergency matter). The court has an unusual number of relists this week, including an unusual number of cases that would be blockbusters if the court decides to take them. There are so many relists 17 cases, and thats if you only count a cluster of 33 (!) Oklahoma cases as a single case that I have to be extremely summary. Its like the long conference in January.

I could reach the limit of our Twitter-shortened attention spans just talking about relists that explicitly ask the Supreme Court to overrule its precedents. There are a pair of cases asking the court to invalidate Harvards and the University of North Carolinas affirmative action programs, and in the process overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld diversity-based affirmative action programs. The cases are Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, 21-707. The court earlier asked for the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on the Harvard case; she recommended that the court deny review, saying that the challengers seek[] to relitigate case-specific factual disputes that both lower courts resolved against them and that the case would be a poor vehicle for reconsidering Grutter. Well see if the court is persuaded.

Then theres 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476, presenting a recurring question the court first confronted in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, about whether an artist (here, a website designer) can be compelled to perform work celebrating a same-sex wedding that is inconsistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The case also presents the question whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable underEmployment Division v. Smith, and if so, whether the Supreme Court should overruleSmith. (The court faced but did not decide the issue of whether to overrule Smith in last terms Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.)

Two terms ago, the Supreme Court held by a 5-4 vote in McGirt v. Oklahoma that Congress had not clearly disestablished a Creek Nation reservation covering much of eastern Oklahoma, and thus the area remained Native American territory for the purposes of a federal criminal law, eliminating the states ability to prosecute crimes there. With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who provided a necessary vote to the McGirt majority, and the confirmation of her replacement, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the state is now asking the court to reverse itself. The state has 33 petitions pending in criminal cases asking that McGirt be overruled so many petitions they have two petitions just involving respondents named Jones, and another two with respondents named Martin. The state has designated Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 21-429, the lead petition, but if the court decides to grant review, it could choose a different vehicle. If the court grants review, it may want to ask the parties to brief the additional question whether Oklahoma was required to file an environmental impact statement in view of the sheer tonnage of paper filings.

Moving on to potential blockbusters that dont explicitly call on the court to overrule precedent. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 21-454, is a long-running Clean Water Act dispute that has already been the subject of one major Supreme Court decision. The Sacketts are a husband and wife who are challenging the governments assertion of CWA authority over their home. They invoke Rapanos v. United States in which a splintered majority of the Supreme Court held that theCWA does not regulate all wetlands. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a four-justice plurality, concluded that only wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to regulated waters may themselves be regulated under the act. Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred only in the judgment, applying a more fact-intensive (critics would say vague) significant nexus test. The Sacketts argue that the court should adopt the pluralitys narrower test as the governing standard.

There are also four cases challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Congress passed ICWA to respond to concerns that state child-welfare practices were causing large numbers of Native American children to be inappropriately removed from their families and tribes and placed with non-Native foster families or adoptive parents. ICWA established minimum federal standards for most child-custody proceedings involving Native American children. The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuitstruck down some provisions of ICWA as unconstitutional. According to the 5th Circuit, some provisions violate the 10th Amendment because they impermissibly commandeer the states. Those provisions, it concluded, include a requirement that state agencies bear the cost and burden of providing expert testimony to support placing Native children in foster care, a requirement that state agencies provide remedial services to Native families, and a requirement that state agencies maintain certain child-placement records.

The 5th Circuit also affirmed the district courts judgment that ICWAs preference for adoptive placement with other Indian families and Indian foster home[s] violates the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The 5th Circuit upheld other provisions of the act. The court has relisted a total of four petitions, two filed by the federal government and a group of Native American tribes seeking to revisit 5th Circuit holdings invalidating provisions, and two filed by the state of Texas and private challengers seeking to overturn parts of the 5th Circuit decision upholding other ICWA provisions. The petitions are Haaland v. Brackeen, 21-376, Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, 21-377, Texas v. Haaland, 21-378, and Brackeen v. Haaland, 21-380.

In January 2019, the Supreme Court denied apetition for certiorarifiled by a football coach at a public high school in Washington state who claimed that he lost his job because he prayed on the field after games. At that time, four justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh notedthat they concurred in the decision to deny review because the factual record was too undeveloped to grant preliminary relief to the coach, emphasizing that they did not necessarily agree with the decision (much less the opinion) below. Since then, the district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit have again rejected the coachs claims. InKennedy v. Bremerton School District, 21-418, Coach Kennedy is back, asking the justices to review whether his conduct is private and protected by the First Amendment.

California has enacted a number of laws over the years that regulate the sale of items ranging from foie gras to fuel based on the method of production that the state believes is too carbon-intensive. Challengers regularly argue that such laws violate so-called dormant commerce clause principles by discriminating against (or seeking to alter) disfavored out-of-state production methods. A number of challenges to such laws have reached the court over the years, but National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468, is the first one since 2014 (the foie gras case) that I can recall being relisted. California bans the sale of pork in the state unless the sow from which it was derived was housed with 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow the sow to turn around freely without touching her enclosure. Challengers argue that almost no farms satisfy those standards, and farmers almost universally keep sows in individual pens that do not satisfy those standards during the period between weaning and confirmation of pregnancy, for animal health and business reasons. Challengers argue that the law is impermissibly extraterritorial because virtually all the pork consumed in California is raised outside the state.

With that, we have to go into full Relist Watch Select mode if we are going to have any hope of ever getting through all these relists. The remaining relists raise the following issues. Each of them is fascinating on its own terms; I give them brief treatment only because there is such an embarrassment of riches this week.

Thats all for this week. Until next time, stay safe!

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 20-1199Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overruleGrutter v. Bollingerand hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violatingTitle VIof the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.CVSG: 12/8/2021(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, 21-707Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overruleGrutter v. Bollingerand hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Wisconsin v. Jensen, 21-210Issues: (1) Whether a persons statement expressing fear about a possible future crime is testimonial under the Sixth Amendments confrontation clause; and (2) whether, when a person reports ongoing psychological domestic abuse and expresses fear about future physical harm, the persons statement aimed at ending an ongoing emergency is non-testimonial.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

George v. McDonough, 21-234Issue: Whether, when the Department of Veterans Affairs denies a veterans claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, that is the kind of clear and unmistakable error that the veteran may invoke to challenge VAs decision.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Haaland v. Brackeen, 21-376Issues: (1) Whether various provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 namely, the minimum standards ofSection 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f); the placement-preference provisions ofSection 1915(a) and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions ofSections 1915(e)and1951(a) violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment; (2) whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge ICWAs placement preferences for other Indian families and for Indian foster home[s]; and (3) whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and therefore consistent with equal protection.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, 21-377Issues: (1) Whether the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred by invalidating six sets of Indian Child Welfare Act provisions 25 U.S.C. 1912(a), (d), (e)-(f),1915(a)-(b), (e), and1951(a) as impermissibly commandeering states (including via its equally divided affirmance); (2) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by reaching the merits of the plaintiffs claims that ICWAs placement preferences violate equal protection; and (3) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by affirming (via an equally divided court) the district courts judgment invalidating two of ICWAs placement preferences, 25 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), (b)(iii), as failing to satisfy the rational-basis standard ofMorton v. Mancari.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Texas v. Haaland, 21-378Issues: (1) Whether Congress has the power under the Indian commerce clause or otherwise to enact laws governing state child-custody proceedings merely because the child is or may be an Indian; (2) whether the Indian classifications used in theIndian Child Welfare Actand its implementing regulations violate the Fifth Amendments equal-protection guarantee; (3) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the anticommandeering doctrine by requiring states to implement Congresss child-custody regime; and (4) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the nondelegation doctrine by allowing individual tribes to alter the placement preferences enacted by Congress.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Brackeen v. Haaland, 21-380Issues: (1) Whether theIndian Child Welfare Act of 1978s placement preferences which disfavor non-Indian adoptive families in child-placement proceedings involving an Indian child and thereby disadvantage those children discriminate on the basis of race in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether ICWAs placement preferences exceed Congresss Article I authority by invading the arena of child placement the virtually exclusive province of the States, as stated inSosna v. Iowa and otherwise commandeering state courts and state agencies to carry out a federal child-placement program.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 21-418Issues: (1) Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection; and (2) whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the free speech and free exercise clauses, the establishment clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Nance v. Ward, 21-439Issues: (1) Whether an inmates as-applied method-of-execution challenge must be raised in a habeas petition instead of through a42 U.S.C. 1983action if the inmate pleads an alternative method of execution not currently authorized by state law; and (2) whether, if such a challenge must be raised in habeas, it constitutes a successive petition when the challenge would not have been ripe at the time of the inmates first habeas petition.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 21-454Issue: WhetherRapanos v. United States in which the Supreme Court held that theClean Water Actdoes not regulate all wetlands, but without a majority opinion explaining why that is so should be revisited to adopt the pluralitys test for wetlands jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, in which only those wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to regulated waters may themselves be regulated.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468Issues: (1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in the Supreme Courts decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a claim underPike v. Bruce Church, Inc.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476Issues: (1) Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent, contrary to the artists sincerely held religious beliefs, violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment; and (2) whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable underEmployment Division v. Smith, and if so, whether the Supreme Court should overruleSmith.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Vega v. Tekoh, 21-499Issue: Whether a plaintiff may state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer under42 U.S.C. 1983based simply on an officers failure to provide the warnings prescribed inMiranda v. Arizona.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Shoop v. Twyford, 21-511Issues: (1) Whether federal courts may use the All Writs Act to order the transportation of state prisoners for reasons not enumerated in28 U.S.C. 2241(c); and (2) whether, before a court grants an order allowing a habeas petitioner to develop new evidence, it must determine whether the evidence could aid the petitioner in proving his entitlement to habeas relief, and whether the evidence may permissibly be considered by a habeas court.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Love v. Texas, 21-5050Issues: (1) Whether Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the only court of last resort reviewing direct appeals in death penalty cases, has decided an important federal question concerning a racially biased juror being allowed on a capital death penalty jury in violation of petitioner Kristopher Loves rights under the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (2) whether Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the only court of last resort reviewing direct appeals in death penalty cases, has decided an important federal question concerning a racially biased juror in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the Supreme Court in violation of Loves rights under the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Oklahoma v. Brown, 21-251; Oklahoma v. Kepler, 21-252; Oklahoma v. Hathcoat, 21-253; Oklahoma v. Mitchell, 21-254; Oklahoma v. Jackson, 21-255; Oklahoma v. Starr, 21-257; Oklahoma v. Davis, 21-258; Oklahoma v. Howell, 21-259; Oklahoma v. Bain, 21-319; Oklahoma v. Perry, 21-320; Oklahoma v. Johnson, 21-321; Oklahoma v. Harjo, 21-322; Oklahoma v. Spears, 21-323; Oklahoma v. Grayson, 21-324; Oklahoma v. Janson, 21-325; Oklahoma v. Sizemore, 21-326; Oklahoma v. Ball, 21-327; Oklahoma v. Epperson, 21-369; Oklahoma v. Stewart, 21-370; Oklahoma v. Jones, 21-371 ; Oklahoma v. Cooper, 21-372; Oklahoma v. Beck, 21-373; Oklahoma v. Jones, 21-451; Oklahoma v. McCombs, 21-484; Oklahoma v. McDaniel, 21-485; Oklahoma v. Shriver, 21-486; Oklahoma v. Martin, 21-487; Oklahoma v. Fox, 21-488; Oklahoma v. Cottingham, 21-502; Oklahoma v. Martin, 21-608Issue: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma should be overruled.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Oklahoma v. Williams, 21-265; Oklahoma v. Mize, 21-274; Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 21-429Issues: (1) Whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country; and (2) whether McGirt v. Oklahoma should be overruled.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Knight v. Pennsylvania, 20-7805Issue: Whether a state may require a defendant to present an IQ score of 75 or below that was documented prior to age 18 to have his intellectual disability claim considered as a basis to disqualify him from the death penalty, when this requirement is contrary to clinical standards for diagnosis and contrary to multiple decisions where the Supreme Court has granted relief to petitioners who lacked any such documentation.(relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Nov. 12, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan. 7 conferences)

Holcombe v. Florida, 21-53Issues: (1) Whether a criminal defendant establishes an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects counsels representation when the attorney engages in joint and dual representation i.e., simultaneously representing both the defendant and a key prosecution witness during a trial; (2) whether the presumed prejudice conflict of interest standard applies when the prosecutor (rather than defense counsel) puts the trial judge on notice at the beginning of a trial of defense counsels conflict of interest a conflict which is described by the prosecutor as not waivable and the judge thereafter fails to inquire into the nature and scope of the conflict.(relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Nov. 12, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan. 7 conferences)

Trustees of the New Life in Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg, 21-164Issues: (1) Whether civil authorities violate the First Amendment when they engage in their own interpretation of church doctrine to overrule a churchs determination that a particular official is a minister and, if so, whether summary reversal is appropriate; (2) whether, in the alternative, the Supreme Court should grant, vacate, and remand in light ofFulton v. City of Philadelphia, because Virginia has enacted a system of individual exemptions to its property tax law, and the city may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to [the Church] without compelling reason.(rescheduled before the Oct. 8 and Oct. 15 conferences; relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Nov. 12, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan. 7 conferences)

Arrow Highway Steel, Inc. v. Dubin, 21-27Issues: (1) Whether the dormant commerce clause may be used to invalidate the application of a states neutral, non-discriminatory tolling statute to defeat the enforcement of a former residents stipulated judgment where there is no showing of any burden on or discrimination against interstate commerce; and (2) whether the dormant commerce clause applies to a state statute with no intended or demonstrated effect on interstate commerce.(relisted after the Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan 7 conferences)

Read the rest here:
Blockbuster watch: Affirmative action, same-sex weddings, and other big relists - SCOTUSblog

I spent many years writing about the Fort Trumbull drama.

It began with the City of New London, through its corporate development group, failing to dislodge by way of buyout offers the residents of the peninsula's old neighborhood. They were seen as being in the way of redevelopment aimed at expanding the city's tax base and driving economic growth.

The fateful decision to turn to eminent domain to seize and raze the homes deeply divided the community. Led by Susette Kelo and her pink house, the residents dug in. Then came the 2005 landmark but broadly unpopular 5-4 Supreme Court decision, led by the liberal justices, which found that taking private property to spur private development could, somehow, be considered a "public use" under the "taking" clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Irony followed. The city, having won the legal battle, saw nothing much happen with the large vacant property for 15 years. Next door stood the two Pfizer office buildings that predated the Kelo case, a space later abandoned by the Big Pharma company and replaced with Electric Boat offices, but across the peninsula stretched vacant parcels.

Aside from the state park and its historic fort, and the adjacent Coast Guard station, it began to seem nothing ever would, or could, happen at Fort Trumbull. Proposed projects came and went. It was as if a curse had been placed on the place in revenge for the home-taking powerplay.

If so, the curse is lifting. Economic opportunity was the antidote.

On Thursday the city's Planning & Zoning Commission approved plans for a 100-unit, high-end apartment complex and a 100-room extended-stay hotel, which should both offer visitors spectacular views of the Thames River and toward Long Island Sound. A red-hot market for apartments, fueled in significant part by job expansion at EB, suggests developers will have no problem filling those apartments. The extended-stay hotel meets an obvious need as EB, the Coast Guard Academy, the region's Yale-New Haven Health medical centers, and other institutions attract professionals needing lengthy accommodations.

This spring, the city is expected to begin construction on a $30 million community recreation center in the Fort Trumbull area. Memberships will be made available on a sliding scale, making them affordable to low-income residents, say city officials. Making sure the city's youth have access to the center, and transportation options to get there, is a challenge that must be met if New London truly wants to makethis a community center, the development of which has been a long-term goal of Mayor Michael Passero.

While the development of the residential properties and the community center will leave some parcels undeveloped, I suspect it won't be for long. The anticipated activity that the new development will generate regional athletic events are planned for the community center along with the bustle the EB offices already create, is sure to attract another investor or investors. Picture a restaurant, a coffee shop, a place to grab a drink and other businesses that could benefit from the foot traffic.

By 2025, the 20th anniversary, of Kelo v. City of New London, Fort Trumbull will be largely, and perhaps fully, transformed.

This is not good news for those who have pushed for the National Coast Guard Museum to be built there, rather than at the planned location on the waterfront in the city's downtown section. The community center will be a large, non-property-tax-paying project. The city will not welcome a second one to Fort Trumbull in the form of the museum.

The museum will either be built where planned, helping drive downtown activity, or not at all in New London. Success will be determined by whether the National Coast Guard Museum Association can step up its so far disappointing fundraising efforts. Its latest report shows $79 million committed towards its $150 million goal. Only $29 million comes from private donations, with $30 million in federal aid and $20 million from the state for safe pedestrian access.

The development of a bustling Fort Trumbull and a busy Coast Guard Museum downtown would be great for New London. I'm now confident one is going to happen, while withholding judgment on the second.

Paul Choiniere is the former editorial page editor of The Day, now retired. Reach him at p.choiniere@yahoo.com.

Excerpt from:
Transforming Fort Trumbull, without a Coast Guard Museum - theday.com

Sky News looks at Prince Andrew's options after his legal team failed to persuade a US judge to dismiss Virginia Giuffre's lawsuit accusing the Duke of York of sexually assaulting her when she was underage.

US District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said Ms Giuffre, formerly Virginia Roberts, could pursue allegations that the royal abused her as a teenager and intentionally caused her emotional distress while the late financier Jeffrey Epstein was trafficking her.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The Manhattan judge also said it was too early to assess Andrew's efforts to "cast doubt" on those claims, although the 61-year-old prince could do so at a trial. The duke denies all the allegations against him.

Here are some of Andrew's options now he is set to face a civil sex case trial later this year.

Discovery

The duke has now failed in his attempt to get this civil case thrown out, and therefore the legal process of 'discovery' continues.

This is when both sides request and exchange evidence to help build their cases.

It could involve relevant documents being handed over such as medical records, travel itineraries and diary entries. Discovery is also likely to include depositions.

Follow live updates: Civil trial likely this year as judge issues 46-page document rejecting Prince Andrew's arguments

Depositions

A deposition is when an individual is interviewed out of court but under sworn oath by lawyers acting for the opposite side. A transcript or video of the deposition is then submitted to the court as evidence.

The prince would be deposed by David Boies, the 80-year-old US legal veteran who is representing Ms Giuffre.

Former federal prosecutor Mitchell Eptner argues that Mr Boies is "without peer the greatest deposition taker in modern American jurisprudence".

He deposed Bill Gates in the 1990s and acted for Al Gore in the disputed 2000 US presidential election.

A deposition could take place in the UK but under US oath.

We would also expect Ms Giuffre to be deposed by Andrew's lawyers.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The prince has four options of what to do next.

Option one: Give evidence

Firstly, he could decide to answer questions from Mr Boies in a deposition and share personal documents with Ms Giuffre's legal team.

The duke has strenuously and repeatedly asserted his innocence and he may relish the opportunity to set out his recollections and views.

Judge Lewis Kaplan had suggested a jury trial could start in September 2022. Continuing to trial would be a high-risk move and definitely lead to further damaging headlines involving the prince and his family.

Option two: Stay silent

The duke could agree to a deposition but 'take the fifth' - decide to assert his rights under the fifth amendment to the US constitution and stay silent to avoid incriminating himself.

That fact alone, however, could damage his case and be taken into account by the judge and jury at a trial.

Option three: Refuse to participate

The duke could decide to stop engaging with the legal process and take a 'default judgement'.

The judge would then make a ruling on his liability and set damages.

Option four: Settle

In approximately 95% of US civil cases, a settlement is agreed between the two parties, often involving money. Jury trials are rare.

To stem further damage to the Royal Family, the duke may decide to settle. Some legal experts estimate this would be a multi-million dollar deal.

Continuing to fight the case would also bring significant legal costs and therefore it may now be wise to cut his losses.

Ms Giuffre's motivations do not, however, seem purely financial.

She has already received significant compensation due to the abuse she suffered at the hands of paedophile Epstein, and may now be more concerned with finding the truth and pursuing justice.

It seems highly unlikely Ms Giuffre and her team would settle without an acknowledgement of liability and an apology from the prince.

Read the rest here:
Prince Andrew sex assault allegations - What are his options after he fails to get US judge to dismiss accuser Virginia Giuffre's case? - Sky News

Summary

President Biden calls for filibuster reform, if Republicans block voting rights legislation, during his big speech in Atlanta. It comes as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer plans to bring the legislation to the floor again as soon as Wednesday. Meantime, the Jan. 6th committee issues a new round of subpoenas, targeting two Donald Trump Jr. advisors and a former White House official who helped draft the speech Trump gave prior to the attack on the Capitol. Plus, the U.S. reports more than 1.3 million new Covid infections just a week after breaking the previous daily record.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Time for tonight`s "LAST WORD."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA) MINORITY LEADER: The President bears responsibility for Wednesday`s attack on Congress by mob rioters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Kevin McCarthy, friend of Donald Trump gets tonight`s "LAST WORD." THE 11TH HOUR starts now.

[23:00:28]

STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. Day 357 of the Biden administration. Today, the president and vice president we`re in Atlanta, Georgia, the epicenter of the civil rights movement to make their strongest case yet for voting rights. Together, they urge the Senate to pass the new voting protections still being blocked by all 50 Republicans and Biden through his support behind changing the Senate rules to make that happen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: We must stand strong and stand together to make sure January 6 marks not the end democracy. But the beginning. The Freedom of the Vote Act takes on election subversion to protect nonpartisan electors, officials who doing their job from intimidation interference, it`s also time to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

I`ve been having these quiet conversations with members of Congress for the last two months. I`m tired to be quiet.

The threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bill. Debate them, vote, let the majority prevail. And if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the Senate rules including getting rid of the filibuster for this.

I support changing the Senate rules, whichever way they need to be changed to prevent a minority of senators from blocking action on voting rights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: And why has President Biden made this his number one focus? Well, according to the Brennan Center for justice, at least 19 states have passed 34 different laws restricting access to the ballot. Vice President Harris offered this warning about those very efforts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: There is a danger of becoming accustomed to these laws. We must not be deceived into thinking a law that makes it more difficult for students to vote is normal. We must not be deceived into thinking a law that makes it illegal to help a voter with a disability vote by mail is normal. There is nothing normal about a law that makes it illegal to pass out water or food to people standing in long voting lines.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: While back in Washington, the two Senate leaders both took to the floor today with strong statements about voting legislation and reforming the filibuster. Majority Leader Schumer insisted Democrats are ready to move forward.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) MAJORITY LEADER: The Senate is going to act as soon as tomorrow. It is my intention to once again bring legislation to the floor to fight back against the threats to democracy and protect people`s access to the ballot.

Once again, I urge my Republican colleagues to take up the flag of the traditional Republican Party, not only of Lincoln, but of Reagan and H.W. Bush and W. Bush and vote yes to move forward. So we can have a debate, like the debate we just had, or discussion we just had.

But if Republicans continue to hijack the rules of the Senate to prevent voting rights from happening, if they continue paralyzing this chamber, to the point where we`re helpless to fight back against the big lie, we must consider the necessary steps we can take so the Senate can adapt and act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: While Republicans Republican Mitch McConnell fired back promising his favorite move to retaliate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY) MINORITY LEADER: If my colleague tries to break the Senate to silence those millions of Americans, we will make their voices heard in this chamber in ways that are more inconvenient for the majority and this White House than what anybody has seen, and living memory.

Our colleagues who are itching to drain every drop of collegiality from this body have not even begun to consider how that would work. If the Democratic leader tries to shut millions of Americans and entire states out of the business of governing, the operations of this body will change. Oh, yes. That much is true, but not in ways that reward the rule breakers. Not in ways that advantage this president, this majority or their party. I guarantee you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:24]

RUHLE: There`s also new developments tonight in the January 6 investigation, House Select Committee now interested in talking to extra lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of the leading figures over and over peddling false claims about election fraud.

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson says Giuliani is on a list of a lot of people they want to be talking to. When asked about the possibility of a subpoena for Giuliani, Thompson said the committee is working through the process.

The panel today did issue a round of subpoenas to three separate people all in the Trump family inner circle. The lawmakers demanding testimony and documents from Andy Surabian, Arthur Schwartz, were both advisors to Donald Trump Jr. The committee says those two guys spoke with the younger Trump and others about last year`s rally. The third subpoena which Ross Worthington, he`s a former Trump White House official who allegedly helped draft Trump`s rally speech.

And as that investigation unfolds, the Department of Justice today announced the creation of a new unit to fight domestic terrorism. Justice officials say there are persistent and evolving threats of violent extremism in the US.

And as the nation battles the relentless spread of Omicron, many hospitals across the country are continuing to be overwhelmed. The New York Times reporting today that the number of people admitted for COVID now higher than it was during last winter surge.

With that and a lot of news we`ve got to cover tonight. I want to bring in our lead off guests on this Tuesday. Phil Rucker, Pulitzer Prize winning senior Washington correspondent for The Washington Post and co-author of the must read New York Times bestseller, "I alone can fix it." Alexi McCammond, political reporter for Axios and Chuck Rosenberg, former US attorney and former senior FBI official

Phil, let`s talk about Biden, he was pretty clear. He demanded action on voting rights and said we need to tweak, not scrap the filibuster. Many, many people said we need a plan. That sounds like a plan.

PHIL RUCKER, THE WASHINGTON POST SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Steph. This was a long time coming for Democrats and voting rights and civil rights activists in this country. They`ve wanted to see the President speak with a sort of forceful authority and really righteous anger that he showed in Atlanta today.

He clearly is prioritizing voting rights now. But for some Democrats, there`s a feeling that it`s a little bit too late here. And there`s also a question of what that plan actually is without the support of Senators Manchin and Sinema in the Senate, the math just doesn`t add up to get to the 50 votes that are necessary to change those rules and to pass this voting rights legislation.

But as you heard from Senator Schumer, Democrats are going to move forward and later in this week to try to bring this to the floor and try to take action. And what you saw today in Atlanta was Biden and Vice President Harris putting it all on the line and really showing that their presidency and their administration is behind this push right now.

RUHLE: Alexi, some progressives, as well as voting and civil rights groups skipped Biden speech today, after the speech, the president of the NAACP said this quote, while President Biden delivered a stirring speech today, it`s time for this administration to match their words, with actions and for Congress to do their jobs.

Was skipping today a warning to Biden? We don`t show up for you on your speech, and we`re not showing up for you or Democrats come election day, if you don`t deliver.

ALEXI MCCAMMOND, AXIOS POLITICAL REPORTER: That wasn`t the message they were sending. And I asked them during this Zoom in which they announced that they weren`t going if what they would basically say to voters for why they should show up and still support the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates if they aren`t able to deliver on Federal Voting rights.

And these folks said, it`s not about ditching the Democratic Party or ditching Democratic candidates or Biden. It`s about continuing to do the work. And I think that`s what their absence said more than anything. They were saying, Look, President Biden, thanks for coming to Atlanta, but we`d rather you be giving the speech in Washington DC to senators on Capitol Hill. Their absence was saying we`re still doing the work here in Georgia and across the country to educate voters to register voters to make sure they know what to do come 2022. Because voting is you know and started the hour with in 2022 and beyond will really depend based on where you live.

RUHLE: Chuck, let`s talk about this new DOJ unit they are designing to specifically handle domestic terrorism. Is it a big deal? It sounds that way.

CHUCK ROSENBERG, FMR. U.S. ATTORNEY: It sounds that way, Stephanie, but I don`t think it is. Let me explain.

[23:10:02]

Prior to 9/11, the Department of Justice and the FBI was doing a lot of national security work, but they didn`t have a National Security Division. And after 9/11, they created one, they put a new box on the organizational chart of the Department of Justice.

Similarly, prior to January 6, and for many years, the Department of Justice and the FBI has been doing lots and lots of work on domestic terrorism investigations and prosecutions. But they didn`t have a domestic terrorism unit in the National Security Division, now they do.

Putting another box on an organizational chart is helpful in certain ways. It tells the organization what leadership thinks is important, sends a signal to Congress and to the public. But there has to be more than just the box on an organizational chart. I`m glad they did it. But there`s a lot more work to do. Domestic terrorism is a metastasizing threat, and merely creating a new unit, while helpful is not enough.

RUHLE: Isn`t this the first step to doing that? I think back to what they did after 9/11.

ROSENBERG: Yes, I think it`s the first step. But I think there are other and more important steps, Stephanie. Let me give you an example. You all know that there are crimes of international terrorism, providing material support to al Qaeda or to ISIS is a federal crime. There is no federal crime of domestic terrorism. There`s a federal definition of domestic terrorism in the Criminal Code. But there is no crime of domestic terrorism.

The Department of Justice can`t create one, Congress has to. And I think there`s lots of good reasons for Congress to do that, however, and people will know this better than me. I don`t think Congress can agree that today is Tuesday.

And so waiting on Congress to fill this moral equivalency gap in federal law, I think is well, I think we`re going to be waiting quite a long time. That`s what needs to happen. FBI has the tools. The Department of Justice has the tools. They have the experience. They have the agents, they have the prosecutors, but they could use a federal domestic terrorism law from Congress. That`s what we need.

RUHLE: Phil, if you look closely, today`s his speech could be considered something like a campaign rally. This is the second speech in a row. Biden has taken a direct swing at Trump or as he likes to call him, the defeated former president. That`s a new stroke for him.

RUCKER: It is. We heard for all of the first year of Biden`s presidency or reluctance to even reference Donald Trump, let alone utter his name, or speak of him in any of his remarks. He would occasionally refer to the former guy. But now we hear the defeated former president.

You heard in that speech last week that President Biden gave that he invoked Trump although not by name, but invoked him nonetheless 16 times. He came out swinging against Trump and he did so again today in Atlanta. This is a new rhetorical shift.

My colleagues at The Washington Post`s Tyler pager and Annie Linskey have been reporting on this the last few days, and have determined that there`s a new strategy in the White House, which is not to attack Trump daily like this, but to attack him at big high profile moments when he thinks there`s going to be considerable media attention, such as the speech today in Atlanta, and when he might be able to deliver a message beyond those who are following politics hour by hour.

RUHLE: Alexi, how about Chuck Schumer`s message? He`s pushing to hold votes on the floor of the Senate very soon. When I looked at the numbers, I don`t get it. What does he know that we don`t last? I`ve heard Sinema and Manchin they haven`t moved?

MCCAMMOND: Yes, I mean, look, Steph, as you know, holding a vote like that is going to put folks like Manchin and Sinema on the record and show voters across the country and their state and otherwise, where they stand on this issue, and show people where the remaining continued disagreements are within the Democratic Party.

So, I don`t think that Schumer thinks that this thing is going to be passed into law anytime soon. I don`t think that Manchin and Sinema are necessarily going to be convinced by one speech by President Biden and Vice President Harris.

But it`s not to say that the debate will end after this vote happens. I think there`s going to be a lot of conversations and negotiations going forward.

RUHLE: But we know where they stand. Joe Manchin has said it over and over and over, there`s no surprise there.

MCCAMMOND: Well, you know, I think they`re going to show Americans where they stand. I mean, you know, baby Joe Manchin will try to use this as a moment to get more leverage with Build Back Better, as you know, that has been passed, in part because Senator Joe Manchin is holding that up as well. So, their conversations to be had and the senators say they want to get something done.

RUHLE: All right, Chuck, let`s go back to the January 6 committee. They say they`re working on getting Rudy Giuliani to testify, and I want to share what Republican committee member Adam Kinzinger said earlier tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): Obviously Rudy was in a lot of those conversations.

[23:15:00]

We see an after the fact reporting he was, you know, actively pressing the president on these conspiracies and convincing him and, you know, worming his way in to these meetings. So he`ll have some information, I fully expect he probably won`t be super cooperative. But again, Congress has ways to compel that and we have ways to ensure that he`s telling the truth under oath.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: What are the ways to compel? Because let`s be honest, the likelihood Rudy Giuliani is going to participate while he loves the attention and he loves to talk. He`s not going to play ball.

ROSENBERG: No, he`s not going to play ball, Stephanie. And I think there`s a bigger problem with all due respect to the Congressman that he missed. You recall that the FBI executed search warrants at Mr. Giuliani`s home and office. He`s under criminal investigation, as far as we knew. He`s either likely a subject or a target of a federal criminal investigation, that gives him a Fifth Amendment privilege. Look, I`d love to hear from the guy.

RUHLE: Explain that.

ROSENBERG: Sure. We have reason to believe that Giuliani is under criminal investigation. We know the FBI executed search warrants at his home and office more than a year ago. That case has never been resolved. And it`s been very quiet.

But I imagine that because he`s under investigation, he can assert validly a Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to answer any question, if an answer to the question tends to incriminate him.

So, your point about him not being cooperative is spot on. I`m not sure this guy would know the truth of it hit him in the back of their head.

But putting all that aside, and putting aside to that, I would love to hear from him because he must have tons of relevant information. He also can invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. That`s a problem for Congress.

Prosecutors can overcome that, by immunizing and compelling someone to testify. Congress, in theory could try that route. But it might undermine any ongoing prosecution that the Department of Justice is conducting. This is a more difficult issue than the Congressman imagines.

RUHLE: Of course, the White House has other issues they`re dealing with. Phil, at this point, is the White House strategy around COVID and Omicron, to let this wave crest recede, and then get back to normal because as the days pass, you hear from more and more business leaders that are saying, yes, this thing`s going to move, and we`re all getting back to work or you`re not getting paid. That`s the most aggressive we`ve seen from the business community.

RUCKER: It certainly is Steph, and it`s a different approach than we saw in previous waves of the Coronavirus last year and then the year prior. The attitude in the White House is let`s get back to normal as quickly as we can. Obviously, they`re dealing with the hospitalizations around the country with the testing issues, with making sure that as many people are getting vaccinated as possible, but there`s also a focus on trying to get this economy more opened up getting life back to normal, getting people back in offices whenever it`s safe and appropriate to do so.

And also a determination from this White House not to impose any sort of lockdowns or extreme restrictions of the kind that we saw in those early months of the pandemic in the spring of 2020.

RUHLE: There`s a lot of determination when it comes to a political agenda for the President to get his whole party under 110. Alexi, before we go progressives, what is their plan to get in line, GOP style, hold your nose and get behind Trump? Or are they going to stand firm to what they believe and what they want? Whether it`s with voting rights or Build Back Better? Biden, excuse me.

MCCAMMOND: Sorry, you`re asking about progressive, they`re going to continue doing what they`ve been doing, which is employing the leverage that they have as a unified caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has been moving as a solid block throughout this entire Congress and congressional session.

And so I don`t see that going away anytime soon, especially when Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, you know, has become a leader within that movement internally. And I think that`s especially true with voting rights, especially because they have the backing of all these folks on the outside the voting rights leaders, the civil rights leaders, the activist members of the King family, so there`s no reason for them to capitulate to anyone at this point.

RUHLE: Because at some point, Joe Manchin and progressives have got to get on some sort of similar page to get something done those activist groups, while massively important don`t have a vote Manchin and Sinema do.

MCCAMMOND: Yes, but I guess the argument they would make is it`s to folks versus you know, thousands and thousands and thousands across the country who are asking for these voting rights to be passed into law or asking for measures within the Build Back Better Act to be passed into law and help them, that only live life but participate in elections this cycle and next.

RUHLE: And if you want those thousands and thousands of votes for years to come, you better deliver.

[23:20:02]

Phil, Alexi, Chuck, always good to have you. We`re going to leave it there. Coming up, we`ve got a lot more to cover. Why would anyone be against protecting voting rights or saving lives from COVID? Turns out the answer might be the same for both. I`ll get into what our political experts and one of our top doctors have to say. THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on this Tuesday night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): Let me say this plainly and simply and straightforward. There is no widespread effort to suppress minority voting rights in America. It`s nonexistent, it doesn`t exist. This has nothing to do with this. This has to do with power.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RUHLE: Well, that is not plain simple or straightforward. So let`s get practical. Here`s a reminder, this is what is in the legislation Democrats are trying to pass. The Freedom to Vote Act would expand voter registration and Election Day access, provide universal mail-in voting, make Election Day a national holiday and ban partisan redistricting. The John Lewis Voting Rights Act would reinstall federal oversight for cities and states with histories of voter discrimination.

With us tonight to discuss, Juanita Tolliver, veteran political strategist to progressive candidates and causes. And Mark McKinnon, former adviser to both George W. Bush and John McCain. He`s also among the co-hosts of the circus on Showtime.

Mark, we just went through this thing. Now Republicans have branded themselves as the party of patriots. How does that square with any patriot who wouldn`t want to make Election Day a holiday?

[23:25:03]

MARK MCKINNON, FMR. ADVISOR TO JOHN MCCAIN AND GEORGE W. BUSH: Great question, Stephanie. I mean, this really boils down to -- I mean, I respond first of Marco Rubio by saying the root of this is the 2020 election and President Trump claiming that there was widespread election fraud in the system. And the fact is, there is none. There is no widespread systemic fraud, that then the greatest fraud perpetuate in American politics today is the notion that there was.

More:
Transcript: The 11th Hour, 1/11/22 - MSNBC

Before US vice president Mike Pence could certify the Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021 the last ceremonial step before president-elect Joe Biden was to be sworn in rioters breached the US Capitol.

Outside the chamber doors, a rioter was shot and police officers were beaten and bloodied. Chants of Hang Mike Pence rang through the halls.

Earlier that day, then-president Donald Trump chastised Mr Pence for not going along with his pleas to stop the certification.

You cant do this. I dont want to be your friend any more. I made you. Your career is over, Mr Trump said, as documented in Bob Woodwards book Peril.

Now the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, the US House of Representatives panel investigating the events surrounding the insurrection, wants to hear from the former vice president.

Mr Pence's former chief of staff, Marc Short, is already co-operating with investigators, who have called more than 340 witnesses.

The committee's work is ongoing, with its investigative teams focused on funding, motivations, organisational coalitions and how Mr Trump threatened politicians and election officials, such as Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Although they cannot arrest or bring charges against people, their discovery may be used to shape new legislation. For example, in October 2021, committee members began drafting a bill designed to clarify the procedures for certifying presidential elections.

The committee's findings may also be used in arguments to hold people legally accountable.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed seven Democrats and two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, with Bennie Thompson serving as committee chairman.

Adam Schiff of California and Jamie Raskin of Maryland are two of the better-known Democrats on the committee.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy warned Mr Kinzinger and Ms Cheney they would be stripped of all other committee assignments if they accepted membership on the panel.

Mr Kinzinger told Forbes: When you've got people who say crazy stuff and you're not going to make that threat, but you make that threat to truth-tellers, you've lost any credibility.

First gentleman Douglas Emhoff, Vice President Kamala Harris, US President Joe Biden and wife Jill Biden salute the crowd after their electoral victory on November 7, 2020. Outgoing president Donald Trump has yet to concede his loss.AFP

July 2021

The committee hears evidence from four police officers who were on the front line as rioters attacked the Capitol.

They include Daniel Hodges, an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, who was crushed in a doorway between rioters and a police line.

Michael Fanone, a Metropolitan Police Department officer, says rioters pulled him into the crowd, beat him with a flagpole, stole his badge, repeatedly shocked him with his Taser and went for his gun.

Mr Fanone says he supports the creation of the January 6 commission and criticises those who played down the attack.

August 2021

Committee investigators say they will seek phone records of members of Congress, the records of at least 30 members of Mr Trump's inner circle from seven government agencies and the White House communication records held by the National Archives.

Records from social media companies such as Twitter, Parler, Facebook and TikTok are also sought.

September 2021

White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, chief adviser Steve Bannon and Kash Patel, Pentagon official and aide to former House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes, receive subpoenas from the committee.

Donald Trump, the president at the time, speaks during a rally protesting the electoral college certification of Joe Biden as president in Washington on January 6, 2021. AP

October 2021

The committee issues subpoenas to Stop the Steal LLC organiser Ali Alexander and assistant attorney general Jeffrey Clark.

Mr Trump says he will defy requests for information from the committee by asserting executive privilege and files a lawsuit against the National Archives, stating that the records request was illegal, unfounded, and overbroad and amounted to a fishing expedition.

Documents requested include phone logs, communications with Mr Meadows and others as well as White House visitor records.

The same month, Mr Bannon claims that Mr Trumps executive privilege also protects him from being compelled to appear as the former president instructed him to defy the subpoena.

The committee announces that it will hold Mr Bannon in contempt.

Former Trump director of strategic communications Alyssa Farah, who told CNN that Mr Trump had lied about the election results, complies with the committees interview request, as does former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen.

November 2021

Mr Clark claims attorney-client privilege and refuses to appear.

Meanwhile, the committee wants to know what happened at Washingtons historic Willard Hotel, known as the war room, where Trump associates reportedly met to formulate plans to stop the January 6 certification.

Subpoenas are issued for InfoWars host Alex Jones, long-time Republican operative Roger Stone, former senior adviser for policy Stephen Miller, Mike Pence's national security adviser Keith Kellogg, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, lawyer John Eastman, and Bernard Kerik, a Trump ally who took part in the Willard Hotel meetings.

A 'war room' reportedly set up in a luxury Washington hotel by advisers of former president Donald Trump has become the focus of the congressional investigation into the violent January 6 attack on the US Capitol. AFP

Warrants are issued for the leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, along with Robert Patrick Lewis, chairman of the 1st Amendment Praetorian.

Federal judge Tanya Chutkan denies Mr Trump's October request to seal archived documents, writing in a 39-page ruling that he appears to be premised on the notion that his executive power 'exists in perpetuity'".

But presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president.

Mr Trump appeals against the ruling and, after he is again denied, he takes his case to the Supreme Court.

Mr Bannon surrenders to the FBI.

December 2021

The committee votes unanimously to hold Mr Clark in contempt of Congress.

Mr Meadows stops co-operating and sues Ms Pelosi and the committee. The House votes in favour of holding him in contempt.

A committee report reveals that Mr Meadows sent an email on January 5 promising that the National Guard would protect pro-Trump people.

Ms Cheney reads aloud texts Mr Meadows traded with the former president and others on and around January 6, indicating that Mr Trump may have committed a felony by obstructing the electoral certification proceedings.

Mr Stone pleads his Fifth Amendment rights and refuses to answer questions.

January 2022

The committee says they have all emails exchanged between Mr Meadows and Fox News host Sean Hannity and have also asked Hannity to comply with requests to speak.

One notable January 6 insurrectionist co-operating with the committee is former Olympic gold medallist, swimmer Klete Keller, who pleaded guilty to obstruction.

Kellers plea deal includes a co-operation agreement and prosecutors say that he is already providing useful information.

He was in the Capitol building at a crucial hour, said assistant US attorney Troy Edwards.

Apart from his co-operating with the government investigation, he potentially has an opportunity to aid the government in a trial that has been set [about people] around him that day.

Updated: January 13th 2022, 11:21 PM

Go here to read the rest:
What has the January 6 committee done so far? - The National