Category Archives: Fifth Amendment

An inquest began today into the 2017 Seattle Police killing of Charleena Lyles, a 30-year-old Black mother with mental illness. Two white officers gunned Lyles down in front of her children.

Her death sparked ongoing public outrage into police violence against Black people and those with mental illness. The petite mother of four was pregnant when she called police to her apartment to investigate an alleged burglary. Minutes later, she was dead.

Officers Jason Anderson and Steven McNew, who responded that day, later said Lyles ended up jabbing toward them with a pocket knife. They both shot her, hitting her seven times.

On the first day of the inquest, most of the testimony came from Seattle Police Detective Jason Dewey with the department's Force Investigation Team, which looks into officer-involved shootings.

Attorney Karen Koehler, who represents Lyles family, questioned Dewey about the officers plan for dealing with someone with mental health issues, given that before they went to the home they were aware of a police encounter with Lyles earlier that month in which she held scissors in a menacing fashion and told officers that she and her daughter were going to morph into wolves.

Dewey acknowledged that the officers made no plan other than not letting her get behind them.

After discussing the suspected burglary with Lyles at her apartment, officers reported that her demeanor changed. Officer Anderson reported that Lyles made a sudden motion and he saw the glint of a knife blade. He reported to Dewey at the time that he sucked his abdomen in as Lyles jabbed it toward his stomach. Shortly thereafter, she approached McNew with a knife, too.

Dewey described to the jury what happened next, reading from the transcript of audio recordings from the incident: Officer McNew yelled "Taser!" and Officer Anderson replied, "I don't have one."

Instead, the officers told Lyles to get back repeatedly, then shot her seven times. As she lay bleeding on the floor, her year-old baby crawled over to her and climbed atop her body, police records show.

The killing led to calls for police reform in dealing with citizens with mental illness, and for the use of conflict de-escalation tactics by specially-trained first responders.

When Koehler asked Dewey when life-saving measures were first taken, he responded that his investigation found that the next officer on the scene was the first to try to revive Lyles.

Okay, so let me make sure I'm understanding. Officer McNew and Officer Anderson did not perform any life saving measures on any level? Koehler asked.

Based on their statements and audio, no, it does not appear that way," Dewey replied.

Later in the day, jurors heard from former Seattle Fire Department medic Jason Abrahamson, who testified to arriving at a disorganized scene and assisting with lifesaving efforts, unsuccessfully.

Jurors will be asked to determine whether officers followed protocol in killing Lyles. The inquest is only the second of its kind since King County Executive Dow Constantine paused inquests to reform the process to make it more fair to families.

The new process requires officers to testify at inquests, although they can invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and not answer questions that may incriminate them.

The county's new inquest model also asks jurors to decide whether police followed the law and department protocol in their actions. Previously, juries were asked simply whether officers reasonably feared for their lives.

The state Supreme Court upheld the inquest reform in a unanimous vote last year, allowing King County to hold inquests for the first time since 2017.

Lyles' family reached a $3.5 million settlement with the city of Seattle in a wrongful-death civil suit last fall.

Original post:
Inquest begins into police shooting of Charleena Lyles - KUOW News and Information

(Photo by PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

How many times will the Trump family plead the Fifth when they go under oath next month before New York Attorney General Letitia James?

Five hundred? One thousand? Do I hear two thousand?

Yesterday the states Court of Appeals rejected an eleventh-hour plea by the former president, Don Jr. and Ivanka Trump to avoid testifying in the AGs long-running investigation of the Trump Organization. Which means that the family has run out of road in their effort to avoid going under oath.

The ruling is hardly a surprise to anyone paying attention to the case. At a totally wacko hearing back in February, Trumps many lawyers tried to persuade Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron to block the AGs investigation.

Alan Futerfas argued that the existence of a criminal investigation by the District Attorney made it illegal for the AG to issue a subpoena, characterizing it as an end-run around the blanket immunity which would confer if the family were forced to testify before a grand jury.

Alina Habba argued that the investigation was tainted by bias, and the court should actually be investigating Tish James and Hillary Clinton.

And Ron Fischetti, the old bull, shouted angrily that My client cant take the Fifth Amendment. Itll be all over the papers! insisting that he didnt care whether Eric Trump took the Fifth 500 times, because My client is not Eric Trump! My client is Donald Trump!

Hell want to testify, he yelled from his video conference square, as if his inability to control his client were the courts problem.

In the event, Justice Engoron was unconvinced, ordering the respondents to turn over the contested documents within 14 days and sit for deposition within three weeks.

The reception at the First Department Appellate Division was no less chilly, with the court tossing the Trumps appeal within two weeks.

Youre asking us to eliminate dozens of years of precedent or act as legislators, Presiding Justice Rolando Acosta retorted when Futerfas restated his bizarre argument. Its not like you are unaware of your criminal jeopardy, in which case you can invoke your privilege against self incrimination. Thats the remedy that you have.

When the appellate court rejected their claim, the Trumps made one more Hail Mary pass to the states highest court. But they also signed a stipulation agreeing to go under oath the week of July 15 if their appeal was rejected. Which means that Don Jr. is probably standing in front of a mirror right now, doing his best Taxi Driver imitation, and shouting, You talkin to me? I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me. So I dont know who youre talkin to.

Theres always the off chance that the Second Circuit will take up the Trumps appeal of US District Brenda Sannes refusal to seize jurisdiction from the state court and make that mean lady stop investigating Daddy. Or Manhattan might be attacked by a flock of flying pigs you never know.

Liz Dyelives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Visit link:
Trump Family Runs Out Of Road In Bid To Block Testimony To NYAG - Above the Law

John Eastman, left, listens as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks at the Jan. 6, 2021, "Save America" rally that preceded the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Jacquelyn Martin/AP hide caption

John Eastman, left, listens as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks at the Jan. 6, 2021, "Save America" rally that preceded the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

At the center of Thursday's House hearing investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection was a lawyer central to former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election: John Eastman.

After Joe Biden won the election, Trump took several routes to try to overturn the election: he tried lawsuits, which failed; he tried pressuring state officials, which also failed; and he ultimately tried to get former Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results when the electoral votes were to be certified on Jan. 6, 2021.

That last plan was drafted in a memo by Eastman.

Thursday's hearing revealed more detail about Eastman's efforts to push bogus legal arguments even after the attack on the Capitol.

Eastman has a long background in conservative law, having clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the late 1990s and was a chairman in the Federalist Society. He worked at a law firm in California before leaving to teach at Chapman University, where he also served as dean, but left shortly after addressing the "Save America" rally before the attack on the Capitol.

Eastman began advising Trump in August 2020, he revealed in court papers, but did not start working closely with him until December 2020 after the results of the election had been decided.

Before he clerked for Thomas, Eastman clerked for Judge Michael Luttig who in Thursday's hearing shot down his former clerk's argument that Trump used to pressure Pence.

Greg Jacob, Mike Pence's former counsel and the other witness at Thursday's hearing, said there was relentless pressure on Pence to try and overturn the election on Jan. 6.

Two days prior to the insurrection, Jacob said he and Pence met with Eastman and were presented with two of his theories: Pence could reject the electors on Jan. 6 and essentially declare Trump president or he could declare a 10-day recess and send the slates back to "disputed" states even though no state was disputed.

But Jacob said Thursday that even Eastman acknowledged that this legal plan would not hold up in the Supreme Court, and that they would lose, 9-0, if Pence did what Trump wanted him to do. And he said his proposal violated the Electoral Count Act.

Eastman also said that the legal argument shouldn't have been used by Al Gore in 2000 and it shouldn't be used by Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

"Al Gore did not have a basis to [overturn the election results] in 2000, Kamala Harris shouldn't be able to do it in 2024, but I think you should do it today," Jacob said Eastman told him.

Trump lawyer John Eastman, left, is seen in a video during a hearing of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection on Thursday. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Trump lawyer John Eastman, left, is seen in a video during a hearing of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection on Thursday.

Even after Jan. 6, Eastman was still talking about the 2020 election not yet being certain.

Former White House lawyer Eric Herschmann told investigators that the day after the insurrection, Eastman raised the issue of disputed votes in Georgia, and Hershmann recalled what he told Eastman in their phone call.

"I don't want to hear any other f-ing words coming out of your mouth other than 'orderly transition.' Repeat those words to me. And eventually, he said 'orderly transition.' I said, 'Good, John,'" Herschmann said in his recorded testimony played Thursday.

Hershmann said he then told Eastman to get a "great f****** criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it."

Thursday's hearing also revealed that after the insurrection, Eastman emailed Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani seeking a preemptive presidential pardon for his role.

"I've decided I should be on the pardon list if that's still in the works," Eastman wrote, according to the email presented as evidence by the Jan. 6 committee.

He did not receive one.

Eastman was questioned by the House committee but plead the Fifth Amendment during his entire testimony. Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., who led questioning in Thursday's hearing, said Eastman plead the Fifth 100 times.

Eastman did not respond to NPR's request for comment.

Also central to the House committee's investigation has been an opinion issued by a federal judge, David Carter, in March.

Carter has been instrumental in the process of getting hundreds of emails from Eastman released.

In his March ruling, Carter said, "based on the evidence, the court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr. Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021."

Carter notes, though, that his findings do not have direct legal consequence. Charges against Eastman and others would have to come from the Justice Department.

"More than a year after the attack on our Capitol, the public is still searching for accountability. This case cannot provide it," Carter wrote. "This is not a criminal prosecution; this is not even a civil liability suit."

Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, outlined in a New York Times op-ed that Trump, Eastman and others in the former president's orbit, could face charges of obstructing an official proceeding agreeing with Carter's assessment. They could potentially also face charges of "conspiracy to defraud the United States," Katyal wrote.

Here is the original post:
Who is John Eastman, the Trump lawyer at the center of the Jan. 6 investigation? - NPR

WASHINGTON

Here's a summary of Native American-related news around the U.S. this week:

Interior Secretary Haaland begins first Tribal Advisory Committee

Native American tribes have long complained that they are not included in federal policymaking that impacts them. U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland announced Wednesday the launch of the first Secretarys Tribal Advisory Committee (STAC) to ensure tribal leaders have direct and consistent contact and communication with current and future Interior Department officials to facilitate robust discussions on intergovernmental responsibilities, exchange views, share information and provide advice and recommendations regarding departmental programs and funding.

Secretary Haaland Announces Members of the First-Ever Secretarys Tribal Advisory Committee

Supreme Court rules in two Native American-related cases

The U.S. Supreme Court this week issued two decisions impacting Native Americans.

In a case that highlights the complexity of criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, the justices ruled against Navajo Nation citizen Merle Denezpi, who in 2017 was arrested for committing a violent sexual assault in the Ute Mountain Ute Agency in Colorado. He was later convicted by a Court of Indian Offenses of assault and battery and sentenced to five months in jail, time he had already served. Because his crime also violated federal law, he faced a second trial by a federal grand jury that convicted him of aggravated sexual abuse and sentenced him to 30 years in prison.

Courts of Indian Offenses were established by Congress in 1883 to serve tribes that didnt have their own courts. Denezpi argued the court, therefore, is a federal agency and that the second trial violated the Constitutions Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause, which says no one can be prosecuted for the same crime twice. In the final Supreme Court opinion issued on Monday, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett called his argument nonsensical.

Merle Denezpi v. United States

The Supreme Court Wednesday handed a major victory to gaming tribes in Texas, ruling that the Texas state government cannot ban the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo tribe from operating electronic bingo games in its Speaking Rock Entertainment Center. Texas has long tried to shut down casinos run by the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and the Alabama-Coushatta tribes. The state claims that it has authority under law to regulate tribal gaming on those reservations.

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo et al. v. Texas

Army to disinter more remains at Pennsylvania Indian school

The U.S. Army is undertaking another effort to disinter the remains of Native American students who died more than a century ago at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and return them to their relatives. The Carlisle Indian School Digital Resource Center at nearby Dickinson College says that at least 189 children were buried in the cemetery. The disinterment process, which began June 11, is the fifth at Carlisle since 2017. So far, the remains of 21 children have been repatriated.

Army Conducts 5th Disinterment of Native Americans at Carlisle Barracks

$7 million grant to help tribes document heritage languages

The Indian Affairs Office of Indian Economic Development on Wednesday awarded $7 million in grants to 45 Tribes and tribal organizations to aid in documenting and revitalizing heritage languages that are in danger of disappearing.

Native language preservation has for many years been cited by Indigenous leaders as important to their self-preservation, self-determination and sovereignty. Native preservation and language revitalization is a critical priority because languages go to the heart of a Tribes unique cultural identities, traditions, spiritual beliefs and self-governance, Bryan Newland, assistant secretary for Indian Affairs, said.

Indian Affairs Makes Significant Investment to Protect and Preserve Native Languages

Native American life expectancy falls during COVID-19 pandemic, researchers find

Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder say that the life expectancy of Native Americans dropped nearly five years during the COVID-19 pandemic three times the 1.36 drop among white Americans. Life expectancy for Native women dropped from 75 in 2019 to 70.4 in 2021, and from 68.6 to just under 64 for men. Researchers blame pre-pandemic social inequities, systemic racism and health disparities of Native Americans.

US Life Expectancy Still Falling, Native Americans Hardest Hit

Here is the original post:
Native News Roundup, June 12-18, 2022 - Voice of America - VOA News

Download PDF

[co-author: Catherine Norwood]

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Court) addressed in an April 11th opinion an issue arising out of the proposed removal of a dam. See Barber v. Charter Township of Springfield, Mich., 31 F.4th 382 (2022).

The question involved whether an opponent of the dam removal had standing to bring a taking action.

Blanche Barber (Plaintiff) owns property near a dam and pond (Dam) that was built in 1836. Charles Township of Springfield, Michigan, and Oakland County, along with their Parks and Recreation Departments, (collectively Defendants) are jointly responsible for maintaining the Dam.

The Defendants conducted a feasibility study which provided various options for upgrading, repairing or removing the Dam. Members of the Springfield Board subsequently recommended removing the Dam. The Defendants budgeted for the dam removal and stated on its website that the project:

. . . has moved to the next phase which includes preliminary engineering and conceptual parks design.

A newspaper article referencing the future removal was also published.

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants to halt the demolition. She argued that the Dams removal would:

After the case was moved to federal court the Plaintiff argued that Defendants decision to remove the Dam was a Fifth Amendment taking. The federal district court held the claims were not yet ripe. Therefore, Plaintiff did not have standing to bring her claims and dismissed Plaintiffs claims.

The Court on appeal disagreed. It found that Plaintiffs claims were both ripe and that Plaintiff had standing . The Court did not address the merits of Plaintiffs claims. However, it noted that the Fifth Amendment states :

Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A taking can include a physical taking such as a government condemning land through the power of eminent domain, physically occupying it, or taking title to the land. Also included is regulatory takings. Further, a regulations terms and provisions can amount in appropriate circumstances to a physical taking. Plaintiff argued Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, holds that Defendants planned actions would be an unconstitutional regulatory form of taking. See 141 S.Ct. 2063, 210 L.Ed.2d 369 (2021).

The Court held that Plaintiffs claims are ripe because Defendants publicly stated they would remove the Dam. Defendants were deemed to have made a definite decision that could possibly cause Plaintiffs property interests serious harm. Because there is an actual conflict between Defendants and Plaintiffs interests, the claims were considered ripe and a court should not delay hearing them.

The Court also found that Plaintiff had standing. It found that Plaintiff plausibly:

. . . faces a risk of concrete and particularized injuries.

If Defendants decide to remove the Dam, Plaintiffs property faces the real threat of flooding and other damage . These injuries are personal to Plaintiffs pondside property.

Therefore, the Court found that Plaintiffs claims were ripe and she had standing to bring them.

A copy of the Opinion can be downloaded here.

Continued here:
Dam Removal: Federal Appellate Court Addresses Whether Opponent Had Standing to Bring Taking Claim - JD Supra

Re Everyone should tune in to learn what House Jan. 6 Committee uncovers (June 8): ABC, NBC, CBS, KPBS and cable news channels CNN and MSNBC are all televising the House Jan. 6 hearings live.

But not Fox News. Why not? The answer seems obvious: Fox News does not want its viewers to see or learn about what actually happened that day.

Cliff McReynoldsLa Jolla

If the House investigation committee is genuinely interested in finding out what happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the committee will use these prime-time TV hearings to inquire, among other things, into the security decisions made by the Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, the D.C. police chief and the sergeants at arms of the House and the Senate. Otherwise, isnt this mere political theater?

Howard R. KillionOceanside

Richard Nixon infamously told aides, I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up or anything else, if itll save it save the plan. Donald Trump thinks taking the Fifth, refusing to testify, is an admission of guilt; only the mob takes the Fifth, he said.

Several Republican members of Congress and Trump minions refused to testify before the Jan. 6 committee and some asked Trump for pardons. The only reason not to testify is theyre afraid of something and the only reason they would ask for a pardon is they believe they broke the law. The only reason Fox News wont air the proceedings is viewers would see the narrative they are pushing is a lie. There will come a day when Trump will disappear, but the legacy of Republican sedition, of Republican corruption and of the part Fox, especially Tucker Carlson, played in the Jan. 6 insurrection will live forever in infamy.

Anthony KopecEscondido

I had little or no respect for former vice president Dick Cheney, but after watching some of the Jan. 6 hearing, I have a world of respect for the courage and integrity of his daughter. This really is American history in the making.

Tom HarpleyHillcrest

David Brooks with The New York Times thinks people are more interested in the price of gas than an attempted coup on our democracy. The price of gas may change our democracy must hold!

D. RuizEl Cajon

Trying to steal an election, and inciting an insurrection should have legal repercussions for Donald Trump.

Hopefully, he will be held accountable for almost bringing our country to its knees.

Bunny LandisOceanside

Watching another Democrat fiasco is a repeat of the Russia interrogations. Seeing the likes of Adam Schiff on that dias is utterly disgusting. Then there are the rest of the Ttrump haters who are soooooo afraid of him getting re-elected and they will tell any story and lie to try to sway all of the citizens who now see them for what they truly are. we are going to have to endure them until November 2022.

No police officer was killed by any of the people that were at the Capitol. The Dems will try to tell you different and that is just another of their lies. One officer died of a heart attack, others died of assorted causes long after Jan 6.

Colleen KlineAllied Gardens

In the hearings playing out on TV, much has been said since the Jan. 6th insurrection and how close we came to losing our Democracy. You know, every single form of government in history has been fleeting and no matter how good or bad it is, they all eventually fail. We have always assumed ours would last forever.

However, for the first time, as the hearings are showing, the form of government we have has shown some real possibility of failing. What the loser of the last election has done to this country may not be stoppable or fixable with the stunningly high amount of effort he exerted to stage this attempted coup. There seems to be just enough of the easily fooled who are willing to allow this to happen and continue to promote a patently false narrative to accomplish this downfall.

We came this close to losing it folks this time! Next time who knows?

Joe SecolaCarlsbad

Read the original here:
Opinion: Opposing viewpoints on the House Jan. 6 select committee hearings - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On June 7, 2022, Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. (the "Company") entered into(i) a Term Loan Credit Agreement (the "Term Loan Credit Agreement"), among theCompany, as borrower, certain subsidiaries of the Company party thereto asguarantors ("the Guarantors"), TopLids LendCo, LLC and Vital Fundco, LLC, aslenders, and TopLids LendCo, LLC, as administrative agent and collateral agentfor the lenders, and (ii) a Fifth Amendment to Credit Agreement (the "ABLAmendment") to the Credit Agreement, dated as of August 3, 2015 (as amendedprior to the ABL Amendment, the "ABL Credit Agreement"), among the Company, asthe lead borrower, the other borrowers party thereto, the lenders party theretoand Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent and collateral agent for thelenders (in such capacities, the "ABL Agent").

The Term Loan Credit Agreement provides for the incurrence by the Company ofterm loans in an amount equal to $30 million (the "Term Loan Facility" and, theloans thereunder, the "Term Loans"). The proceeds of the Term Loans are beingused to finance working capital, and to pay fees and expenses related to theTerm Loan Facility. The Term Loans accrue interest at a rate equal to 11.25% andmature on June 7, 2024. The Company has the right, through December 31, 2022, topay all or a portion of the interest on the Term Loans in kind. The Term Loansdo not amortize prior to maturity. Solely to the extent that any Term Loansremain outstanding on June 7, 2023, the Company must pay a fee of 1.5% of theoutstanding principal amount of the Term Loans on such date.

The Term Loans are required to be repaid (i) after repayment of the FILO trancheunder the ABL Credit Agreement, with up to 100% of the proceeds of the sale of anon-core business line of the Company generating net proceeds in excess of$1,000,000, other than ordinary course dispositions and (ii) in full inconnection with a debt or equity financing transaction generating net proceedsin excess of an amount sufficient to repay the FILO tranche under the ABL CreditAgreement.

The Term Loan Credit Agreement does not contain a financial covenant, butotherwise contains representations and warranties, covenants and events ofdefault that are substantially the same as those in the ABL Credit Agreement,including restrictions on the ability of the Company and its subsidiaries toincur additional debt, incur or permit liens on assets, make investments andacquisitions, consolidate or merge with any other company, engage in asset salesand make dividends and distributions. The Term Loan Facility is secured bysecond-priority liens on all assets securing the obligations under the ABLCredit Agreement, which is all of the assets of the Company and the Guarantors,subject to customary exclusions and limitations set forth in the Term LoanCredit Agreement and the other loan documents executed in connection therewith.

The ABL Amendment amends the ABL Credit Agreement to permit the Company to incurthe Term Loan Facility. The ABL Amendment also provides that, upon repayment ofthe Term Loan Credit Agreement (and, if applicable, any replacement creditfacility thereof), the Company and its subsidiaries may incur second liensecured debt in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $75,000,000.

The foregoing description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the TermLoan Credit Agreement or the ABL Amendment, as applicable, copies of which areattached as Exhibit 10.1 and Exhibit 10.2, respectively, and incorporated byreference in its entirety in this Item 1.01.

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

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant.

The information set forth above under Item 1.01 is incorporated by reference.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

See the rest here:
BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an...

The House of Representatives' select committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021, held its first televised, public hearing in prime time on Thursday and previewed the case it will lay out in the coming days.

Representative Liz Cheney, vice chair and one of just two Republican members of the committee, laid out the issues the committee will cover in the next five public hearings.

Cheney pointed the finger squarely at former President Donald Trump and explained how the committee would reveal his actions on January 6 as the Capitol riot was taking place.

Here are five things to expect from the hearings.

In a moment that reportedly elicited gasps at the committee hearing, Cheney outlined the former president's alleged reaction to the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" that some of the protesters directed at then Vice President Mike Pence on January 6.

"Aware of the rioters' chants to 'hang Mike Pence,' the president responded with this sentiment: 'Maybe our supporters have the right idea'. Mike Pence 'deserves it,'" Cheney said.

Cheney highlighted the chants as part of her discussion of Trump's reaction to the riot, so there is likely to be more information about the former president's attitude toward Pence's refusal to overturn the 2020 election.

Representative Cheney said the committee would outline plots to commit "seditious conspiracy," an offense which is defined as "conspir[ing] to overthrow, put down or destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority thereof."

"Multiple members of two groups, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, have been charged with this crime for their involvement in the events leading up to and on January 6. Some have pled guilty," she said.

"The attack on our Capitol was not a spontaneous riot," Cheney went on.

"Intelligence available before January 6 identified plans to 'invade' the Capitol, 'occupy' the Capitol, and take other steps to halt Congress' count of Electoral Votes that day. In our hearings to come, we will identify elements of those plans, and we will show specifically how a group of Proud Boys led a mob into the Capitol building on January 6," the Republican said.

Cheney said on Thursday that the committee will reveal how Trump planned to "corruptly" replace the U.S. attorney general "so the U.S. Justice Department would spread his false stolen election claims."

"In the days before January 6, President Trump told his top Justice Department officials 'Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen,'" Cheney said, quoting Trump.

"Senior Justice Department officials, men he had appointed, told him they could not do that, because it was not true. So President Trump decided to replace them," she said.

Trump allegedly offered the role of attorney general to Jeff Clark, an environmental lawyer in the Department of Justice, and wanted Clark to write a letter to the state of Georgia and five other states falsely claiming the DOJ had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election."

This plan led senior figures at the DOJ to confront Trump and Clark and threaten to resign.

"In our hearings, you will hear first-hand how the senior leadership of the Department of Justice threatened to resign, how the White House Counsel threatened to resign, and how they confronted Donald Trump and Jeff Clark in the Oval Office," Cheney said.

"The men involved, including Acting Attorney General Jeff Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, were appointed by President Trump. These men honored their oaths of office. They did their duty, and you will hear from them in our hearings," she said.

Clark has refused to testify before the committee and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.

Several serving members of Congress asked then President Trump for pardons because of their role in attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, according to Cheney's opening statement on Thursday, including Republican Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania's 10th district.

"As you will see, Representative Perry contacted the White House in the weeks after January 6 to seek a presidential pardon. Multiple other Republican congressmen also sought presidential pardons for their roles in attempting to overturn the 2020 election," she said.

Cheney said that Perry had been involved in the attempt to get Jeff Clark appointed as attorney general. Perry has denied that he sought a pardon from Trump and Cheney didn't name any other Republicans who may have sought pardons.

Americans will have a chance to see emails between conservative attorney John Eastman and Gregory Jacob, former counsel to then Vice President Pence.

Eastman is viewed as the legal mind behind a strategy to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election by having Pence reject or delay the counting of Electoral College votes. He was recently ordered by a judge to hand over a trove of documents to the committee.

"And you will see the email exchanges between Eastman and the vice president's counsel as the violent attack on Congress was underway," Cheney said.

"Mr. Jacob said this to Mr. Eastman: 'And thanks to your bulls**t, we are under siege.' You will also see evidence that John Eastman did not actually believe the legal position he was taking. In fact, a month before the 2020 election, Eastman took exactly the opposite view on the same legal issues," she said.

The committee hearings will resume on Monday at 10 a.m. E.T.

Original post:
Five Bombshells the Jan. 6 Panel Promised at First Hearing - Newsweek

Terrorists seek to divideto scare, to hurt, to break. They fail when we choose unity. They fail when we choose light over darknesswhen peaceful justice prevails over anger and fear. And in April, in a ninth-floor federal courtroom in northern Virginia, light, and justice won.

The Alexandria courtroom provided the setting for the much-anticipated so-called Beatles terrorism trial, which saw British Islamic State member El Shafee Elsheikh, otherwise known as Jihadi Ringo and captured in early 2018 by the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), tried on eight counts, ranging from hostage-taking to conspiracy to providing material support to terrorists. His co-defendant, Alexanda Kotey, had earlier pled guilty. Both had been extradited to the United States in 2020 after the U.S. government agreed to remove the possibility of the death penalty.

Elsheikhs daily outfit of neat glasses and smart shirts constructed a student look designed to make him appear more sympathetic, but his swaggering walk betrayed the same arrogance that drove him to play a key role in a hostage-taking scheme that resulted in the taking of over two dozen Western hostagesmostly journalists and aid workers. Four AmericansJames Foley, Steven Sotloff, Peter (Abdulrahman) Kassig, and Kayla Muellerwere killed, the first three beheaded as part of ISIS propaganda videos. Two British citizensDavid Haines and Alan Henningwere similarly murdered, while another, John Cantlie, remains missing. A range of hostages from European countries were brutally tortured but released; others, from Japan and Russia and beyond, were not so lucky.

On April 14, Elsheikh was found guilty of all charges. He awaits sentencing later this summer. Kotey has been sentenced to eight concurrent life sentences, with the possibility of a return to the United Kingdom after fifteen years, a stipulation of his plea agreement. Beyond the immediate impact on these terrorists and the families of their victims, though, the trial has significant implications for U.S. counterterrorism, the ability of the justice system to prosecute international terrorists, and the future of U.S. hostage policy.

The first conclusion to be drawn from the Beatles trial in Alexandria is also the most important: Americans so rarely get to see an international terrorist brought to justice here in the homeland, and the trial showcased the power of the American justice system to prosecute and incarcerate such individuals. The constitutional right to a speedy and fair trialas stipulated by the Sixth Amendmentwas rigorously applied by Judge T.S. Ellis III throughout the court proceedings that lasted two-and-a-half weeks and heard testimony from thirty-five prosecution witnesses. The trial thus stood in marked contrast to the futile two-decade-long effort to bring to justice Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and the other terrorists incarcerated at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A total of some 800 persons have been imprisoned at the facility since 2002. Fewer than forty currently remain there. None have been accorded anything even resembling the due process that unfolded in Alexandria in late March through mid-April. It is a stain on our democracy.

The treatment of the Guantanamo detainees, in fact, figured prominently throughout the trial. A succession of witnesses, that included former hostages, testified how the Beatles justified the ill-treatment of their American captives with that of co-religionists there. Just as KSM was subjected to waterboarding and other torture, so were the Western hostages held by ISIS. They were also attired in orange jumpsuits like the Guantanamo detainees in each of the cruel execution videos that ISIS subsequently released. Indeed, throughout the trial, the stanza from W.H. Audens well-known poem, September 1, 1939, came to mind. I and the public know/What all schoolchildren learn/Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return. This is not in the least meant to imply any moral equivalency between the U.S. treatment of the Guantanamo detainees with that of ISISs heinous treatment of its captives, but to illuminate the lasting, however unintended, consequences of Americas ill-conceived detention policy and the constant references to it throughout the trial.

The Guantanamo debacle has had implications for families of victims, too, and the Alexandria courtroom provided a venue where families of the fallen and former hostages could speak directly to their tormentors, an opportunity unfortunately all-too-rare in the post 9/11 era. In one of the trials regular themes, the victims one by one faced the defendants with heads held high. One of the family members, defiant, told Kotey and Elsheikh at the formers sentencing that they would no longer be allowed to torment her. I forgive you, she declareda heartbreaking, cutting, and yet so hopeful show of grace and fortitude. Judge Ellis, too, displayed compassion not earned by the defendants actions. Soon after sentencing Kotey to eight concurrent life sentences, Ellis referenced the terrorists aforementioned plea deal: I do hope you get to go home, Ellis told the terrorist.

The trial, then, showcased America at its very best: responding to unspeakable horror and unimaginable evil with patience and the protection of a defendants human rights. In fact, precisely that point was made by the father of one of the victims, at Koteys sentencing. Carl Mueller had lost faith in America and his government during his daughters ordeal, he said, but faith had been restored during the trial. Judge Ellis, who has sat on the court since the Reagan administration, was moved to tears by the sentiment.

The Beatles trial was not a victory of counterterrorismconversely, counterterrorism failed on this occasion, because crimes were committed in the first place. But it provides a promising model for how the justice system can effectively respond to terrorism. As Christopher Costa, a retired U.S. Army Special Forces officer and the former senior National Security Council official responsible for counterterrorism, who played a critical role in the kinetic counterterrorism fight against the Islamic State, writes, legal arrows in terms of investigations, extraditions, and trials are more potent than simply killing terrorists. Can that be expanded? Can it provide a model for how to finally end indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, in U.S. civilian court? At the very least, the Beatles trial opened the door to such new possibilities.

Secondly, the trial provided a timely reminder that terrorism remains an important and persistent threat, and that Western defense strategists cannot completely move on to other priorities. Despite our collective (and quite correct) laser focus on Ukraine over the past three months, international terrorism has continued to purrmost notably during a string of savage attacks in Israel. The trial clearly depicted the enduring ability of the twisted and corrupt Salafi-jihadist ideology to inspire individuals to acts of barbary.

Elsheikh said almost nothing throughout the proceedings. As is his constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment, he was not required to testify in his defense. Judge Ellis emphasized to the jury that Elsheikhs refusal to do so should not be taken as suggestive of any guilt. I do not wish to testify was the only word he spoke. But his silence and general demeanor arguably imparted an image of unapologetic self-righteousness if not outright remorselessness. Indeed, the defense would repeatedly claim that Elsheikh was just a simple ISIS soldier inadvertently caught up in the heinous acts of violence attributed to that group and a case of mistaken identity. The prosecution drove home the point that in at least a half-dozen videotaped interviews with the press after his capture, Elsheikh admitted to being one of the Beatles.

The twenty-five-page long letter sent by Kotey to Judge Ellis hoping to avoid incarceration in one of Americas high-security, supermax prisons highlighted the absence of remorse and continued justification of ISISs savagery and brutality. In it, Kotey bemoaned his feckless youth and socio-economic disadvantages that he experienced growing up in Britain. A convert to Islam, Kotey explained the gravitational pull of the Salafi-jihadi ideology promulgated by terrorist movements like both Al Qaeda and ISIS to young Muslims of my generation. Citing the CIAs black sites, Guantanamo, and the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Kotey blamed the United States and the West for waging a war on Islam as the reasons he left Britain to fight Syria in March 2012. It was imperative that he do so, Kotey explained, even if it meant never seeing his then-eight-year-old daughter. ISIS had no monopoly on the use of violence in the region, he declared, before fatuously claiming that, contrary to what might have been perceived, no malice was harboured, personally, towards the captives, nor their families. Koteys utter lack of remorse and his hollow protestations that he was a soldier simply executing his duties underscore how the extensive counter-radicalization efforts undertaken by the British government following the 2005 London transport suicide attacks failed to have any impact on Elsheikh, Kotey, and the 800 or so other Britons who joined ISIS and its precursor groups until its caliphate was finally defeated in 2019. This ideology, and the groups it inspires, remain a threat.

Finally, the trial revealed, in an unprecedentedly harsh light, the inconsistencies and incredulity of American hostage policywhich not only refuses to pay ransoms but bars families from negotiating for their loved onesas well as its failure to deter terrorist kidnapping of Americans. Repeated testimony from the European survivorswhose governments either allegedly paid ransoms or did not prevent their families from independently raising funds for that purposeexplained how the Beatles separated their captives based on whether their governments paid ransoms or did notwith the Americans, British, Japanese, and Russian hostages receiving appreciably worse treatment, and ultimately paying with their lives. The testimony thus underscored how utterly inconsequential Americas no concessions hostage policy was either in deterring the future seizure by terrorists of U.S. citizens or winning the safe release of those held captive. The fact that both the United States and Britain historically have been the countries whose citizens are most frequently taken hostage challenges the wisdom and effectiveness of a policy that reportedly was the product of an off-hand remark by then-Secretary of State William P. Rogers that the United States must have a masculine policy in responding to terrorist threats and demands. At the time of its adaption in 1973, this policy resulted in the immediate deaths of two American diplomats held by Palestinian terrorists. It has continued to account for the acute pain and suffering of American hostages themselves and their families for nearly half a century, as testimony throughout the trial revealed. The trial thus thrust into stark light the importance of a rethink on U.S. hostage policy.

Read more from the original source:
Bringing Justice Home: Dispatches from the ISIS 'Beatles' Trial - The National Interest Online

The current Methuen police chief, Scott McNamara, conducted his own investigation, concluding that Gallant lied during Cunhas investigation, mostly to cover up Solomons hands-on involvement in the drafting of the contract.

By attempting to shield Solomons central role in the fraudulent effort to increase police officers compensation, Gallant knowingly misrepresented the nature and extent of the imprimatur that Solomon, then Gallants boss, placed on Gallants deceit, wrote McNamara in his 16-page report.

He found that Solomon was integrally involved in constructing a contract that would have triggered enormous pay raises annually for senior officers, including himself.

Gallants deceit, he wrote. would facilitate a significant, unwarranted compensation increase for Solomon.

Gallants attorney James Simpson promised to fight Thursdays firing.

He denies any wrongdoing and he is going to contest the citys decision either through arbitration or civil service, said Simpson in a statement.

Solomon did not respond to a request for comment.

But city councilors praised McNamaras work -- and his firing of Gallant.

Captain Gallants termination was a long time coming, said Council Chairman D.J. Beauregard. Chief McNamaras report outlines a clear pattern of breathtaking deceit.

Its about damn time, added city councilor Joel Faretra. Hopefully this is just the beginning. Hopefully the state and federal government are watching. I feel like there was definitely criminal activity here.

The Globe has reported that a federal grand jury has been looking into the negotiating of the contract in 2017. The pact was approved by city officials, but never implemented. An arbitrator ruled earlier this year that city officials didnt understand the potential impact of the contract and did not have to abide by its terms.

To conduct his investigation, McNamara compared Gallants testimony before the state inspector general with his testimony before the arbitrator. While he told Cunha that Solomon played no role in the creation of the exorbitant contract, he told the arbitrator that Solomon was directly involved.

Gallant may have thought his testimony before the IG would be confidential, as most IG proceedings are. But McNamara obtained the transcripts and discovered yawning contradictions.

Speaking to the inspector generals investigators, Gallant went to great lengths to minimize Solomons involvement in the negotiation and contract formulation process, wrote McNamara. However, during the arbitration, Gallant states Solomon would have been providing advice on budgetary items throughout the negotiating process.

Solomon was the only member of the citys management team to receive any draft copies of the contract, McNamara wrote. Gallant admitted to the arbitrator that he went back and forth with Solomon as he edited the now discredited contract.

Solomon did not testify before Cunha, McNamara wrote, and took the fifth amendment against self-incrimination before the arbitrator.

A lawyer hired by the city after Gallant appealed McNamaras findings, fully supported McNamaras conclusions, officials said.

Mayor Neil Perry said Gallant was afforded appropriate due process. Police Chief Scott McNamara oversaw a thorough investigation which has concluded, the results of which justify the termination action taken today.

With his firing, Gallant will no longer receive the weekly paycheck of around $2,700 that he has been collecting for a year and a half while on administrative leave.

City councilors hailed Gallants removal, saying it could signal the end of a scandal-ridden era in Methuen.

After four years we are one step closer to closing the door for good on one of the most tumultuous times in city history, said Councilor Steve Saba.

Solomon, who retired last year after running the Methuen police department for nearly two decades, has long insisted he did nothing wrong,

The ongoing federal investigation came after years of controversy around Solomons leadership and his pay. In a city of only 53,000, Solomon earned $326,707 in 2019, which made him one of the nations most highly compensated law enforcement officials.

Andrea Estes can be reached at andrea.estes@globe.com.

Read more:
Methuen fires police captain after report finds he lied to protect former Chief Joseph Solomon - The Boston Globe