Trump Wants DOJ to Investigate Hutchinson for ‘Lying Under Oath’

Former President Donald Trump, denying the House Jan. 6 Committee hearing claims of Cassidy Hutchinson, is now calling out the Justice Department to investigate her for “lying under oath.”

“Social climber Hutchinson lied about my attack on our great Secret Service, lied about her writing the White House note, lied about my throwing food at a wall in the Oval Office, & lied about my wanting to be surrounded by ‘people with guns’ during my ‘Go Peacefully and Patriotically’ speech (how crazy is that?), yet no guns were found in the Capitol,” Trump wrote Thursday night on Truth Social.

“These lies, among others, were made under oath. What is the Justice Department going to do about this? Do we have a two tiered system of justice?”

Trump also added in an ensuing post a repeat of his claim that Hutchinson is a disgruntled castoff from his post-presidency team, saying even after Jan. 6 she sought to work for him in Florida. Trump added he has documented evidence to that claim.

“…Cassidy Hutchinson also forgot to tell the Unselects that she was desperate to go to Florida with certain others of the Trump staff, long after January 6th had come and gone,” Trump wrote. “If I was so evil, why did she fight so hard to stay a part of the MAGA TEAM? This is all documented in writing!”

Trump also noted Hutchinson expounded in the public hearing on her previous depositions behind closed doors for the committee, adding new allegations.

“Why did it take her so long to tell (make up!) these ridiculous and obviously fake stories, even after previously sitting for four long depositions?” Trump wrote. “Was it, just maybe, her brand new lawyer? Lying under oath???”


© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Source link

Legendary ‘Nazi Hunter’ to Lead DOJ Investigations of War Crimes in Ukraine

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has tapped Eli Rosenbaum to lead the War Crimes Accountability Team, as it pertains to the alleged war crimes and atrocities committed during Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The DOJ’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) has experience within this investigative scope, previously being tasked with identifying and deporting Nazi war criminals through the years; and now, Rosenbaum — who reportedly has the nickname of “Nazi Hunter” — will be overseeing the investigations in Ukraine.

“Working alongside our domestic and international partners, the Justice Department will be relentless in our efforts to hold accountable every person complicit in the commission of war crimes, torture, and other grave violations during the unprovoked conflict in Ukraine,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a release.

Also, the release states, “This initiative will bring together the Department’s leading experts in investigations involving human rights abuses and war crimes and other atrocities; and provide wide-ranging technical assistance, including operational assistance and advice regarding criminal prosecutions, evidence collection, forensics, and relevant legal analysis.”

On Tuesday, Garland made an unannounced visit to Ukraine to meet with the country’s prosecutor general.

Garland’s primary objective: Discussing the United States’ commitment to prosecuting those responsible for war crimes in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The DOJ release reiterates that Rosenbaum will be responsible for coordinating efforts across the department, along with other federal agencies.

Prosecutors from the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section will also work with Rosenbaum on holding those responsible accountable.

DOJ officials will have jurisdiction over incidents which involve the wounding and killing of American journalists covering the Russian invasion.

According to the DOJ release, numerous Russian war crimes have been reported throughout the war, including the killing of civilians and multiple allegations of Russian soldiers raping women.

It remains to be seen if a global tribunal will conduct separate war trials for the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

After the events of World War II during the mid-1940s, the Nuremberg, Germany-based International Military Tribunal (IMT) oversaw war trials involving Nazi Germany.

Judges from the Allied powers — Great Britain, France, the United States, and Soviet Union (now Russia) — presided over the hearings, which resulted in 199 defendants, 161 convictions, and 37 death sentences, including 12 reportedly tried by the IMT.

And according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, beginning in 1979, the OSI “opened hundreds of investigations and initiated proceedings of Nazi war criminals. These investigations lead to the denaturalization and/or removal of more than 100 Nazi offenders from the United States.”


© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Source link

Senator Demands Answers From DOJ for Refusing to Prosecute FBI Agents in USA Gymnastics Case


A U.S. senator on Wednesday demanded to know why two FBI special agents were not prosecuted for mishandling an investigation into convicted sex offender Larry Nassar, the former doctor of the USA Gymnastics national team.

U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) wrote to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in relation to the Department of Justice (DOJ) refusing to charge the two federal agents involved in investigating sexual abuse claims from Olympic athletes against Nassar.

Wicker’s letter comes after a 2021 report by the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that the two FBI officials lied during their interviews to cover up or minimize their errors and gave false statements to the media.

“This decision is egregious and severely calls into question the Department’s judgment. I am particularly concerned this lack of accountability will further erode confidence in law enforcement among victims of sexual abuse, making it less likely abuse will be reported in the future,” Wicker wrote.

“The right of Olympic athletes to compete and train in an environment free from abuse of any kind is of the utmost importance. In this instance, young women, mostly minors, were sexually abused by an individual entrusted with their care and well-being.”

The ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee requested that the DOJ brief the committee on the review process that confirmed the DOJ’s decisions not to bring charges.

He also requested that the DOJ provide confirmation on the number of people allegedly abused by Nasser, the number allegedly abused after the FBI was notified about Nasser, and for an explanation on whether further abuses might have been reduced had the FBI had acted sooner.

Wicker also asked the DOJ to explain how many times in the last three years it had brought charges against non-government employees, federal law enforcement officials, and FBI employees “for both lying under oath to federal law enforcement or manufacturing evidence.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to the FBI for comment.

After allegations of Nassar’s abuse were first reported to the FBI Indianapolis Field Office by the president of USA Gymnastics in 2015, local field agents failed to respond “with the utmost seriousness and urgency that the allegations deserved and required,” the DOJ OIG report found.

The FBI has admitted that its agents mishandled the investigation but the OIG, while noting the seriousness of the former agents lying during the investigation, said there wasn’t enough to bring a federal criminal case.

Epoch Times Photo
(L-R) U.S. Olympic Gymnasts Aly Raisman, Simone Biles, McKayla Maroney and NCAA and world champion gymnast Maggie Nichols in Washington on Sept. 15, 2021. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

On Wednesday, more than 90 athletes, including Simone Biles and others who say they were abused by Nassar, announced they are suing the FBI for $1 billion for its mishandling of their cases.

“It is time for the FBI to be held accountable,” said Oklahoma’s Maggie Nichols, national champion gymnast from 2017 to 2019.

Former University of Michigan gymnast Samantha Roy, one of the claimants, said that if the FBI had done its job, Nassar “would have been stopped before he ever had the chance to abuse hundreds of girls, including me.”

Nassar pleaded guilty in 2017 and was sentenced to up to 175 years in prison on numerous charges, including possessing child sex abuse material and sexual abuse.

Caden Pearson

Follow

Caden Pearson is a journalist based in Australia. He has a background in screenwriting and documentary. Contact him on caden.pearson@epochtimes.com.au



Source link

Navarro Indictment Shows ‘Two-Tier’ System, Raises ‘Major Constitutional Issues’

Legal experts say the indictment filed on Friday against former Trump White House official Peter Navarro is nothing more than a political witch hunt.

Navarro was indicted on contempt charges after defying a subpoena from the Democrat-dominated House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Under the subpoena, which was issued in February, Navarro was instructed to provide a deposition and documents to the committee. Because he refused, Navarro faces two counts. Each of the charges carries potential penalties of between 30 days and a year in jail and a fine of up to $100,000, according to the Department of Justice.

He is the second Trump adviser to be charged with contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with the Jan. 6 committee. Navarro has claimed executive privilege, which the House panel has rejected, claiming its questions dont violate any areas of privilege.

Navarro was serving as an official adviser to the president at the time of the Jan. 6 breach. Thats in direct contrast with Steve Bannon, who, like Navarro, has been charged, but was an outside adviser to Trump and not an official member of his administration at the time of the breach.

The House has also voted to hold former Trump aide Dan Scavino and former chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt, but the DOJ has not prosecuted either of them to date.

John Tolley, a New York-based attorney and former prosecutor, called the indictment against Navarro “interesting because it does bring up some major constitutional issues.”

While rare, it is not unprecedented for the House to vote to hold high-profile figures in contempt of Congress.

The Republican-controlled House opted to hold Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt during an investigation into a gun-running operation, however, a federal judge declined to place him behind bars for failing to hand over documents.

Former Obama-era IRS official Lois Lerner was also able to escape facing criminal contempt charges from the Justice Department despite being held in contempt.

In 2008, the House Oversight Committee sent a criminal referral over to the Justice Department raising concerns that baseball star Roger Clemens lied under oath about the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Clemens was tried and acquitted.

Tolley said Navarro’s prosecution is uncommon, especially when comparing it to similar instances, like those of Holder and Lerner.

“He should have been held in contempt as opposed to criminally prosecuted,” he said.

Michael Abramson, a racticing attorney, host of “Advancing the Agenda” podcast, and Newsmax insider, said the DOJ needs to handle referrals from Congress consistently.

“If it is a Bush DOJ, you want them to be acting the same way as a Biden DOJ would act so the principles of law are consistently applied,” he said. “You want consistency. The law exists to protect people. Policies and procedures have to be followed for people to be treated fairly. When these policies and procedures are not followed you come into a situation where the rights of individuals may be attacked.”

Juscelino Colares, a law and political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, said it “definitely seems like we have come to a point where we have a two-tier justice system” of “selected enforcement” where the FBI acts on indictments against Republicans when the Democrats are in control of the House but not at all when Republicans are in control of the House.

“We can’t be a nation of laws and at the same time a nation where the laws are only enforced against one group of people,” he said. “That’s not conducive to building the public trust in our institutions.”

While holding public figures in contempt is not uncommon, the DOJ doesn’t typically prosecute a person claiming executive privilege.

Navarro has previously argued that he should be protected because he was serving in an official presidential capacity.

Noting that Clemens was eventually exonerated by a Washington, D.C., jury despite facing a bipartisan criminal referral, Navarro pointed out the difference between himself and the MLB All-Star pitcher.

“I’m not as good a baseball pitcher [as] Roger Clemens. But he never served in the White House,” Navarro said. “The idea [of] stripping President Trump of executive [privilege] is fanciful and absurd.”

The FBI arrested Navarro Friday morning. During his first court appearance later that afternoon, Navarro said that he was on his way to Nashville, Tenn., for a television appearance Friday morning and that an FBI team let him get to the airport and try to board a plane before putting him in handcuffs. He said he was then put in a jail cell.

Abramson said the manner of Navarro’s arrest also raises concerns.

“There are clearly less obstructive manners of arresting somebody,” he said.

Navarro also told Magistrate Judge Zia Farqui that he filed a lawsuit against the House of Representatives and the Jan. 6 Committee.

On Tuesday, Navarro filed suit against Congress claiming the House select committee is unlawful so the subpoena it issued to him in February is unenforceable under law.

“This is something that needs to get to the Supreme Court,” he told the judge Friday. “Department of Justice appears to have colluded with the White House and Congress.”

Tolley said if he were representing Navarro he would have instructed him to appear for the requested testimony, but not answer certain questions if they would have violated executive privilege.

“This potentially could have saved him from being indicted on the count for failure to appear,” he said.

On the other count of failing to provide documents, he said Navarro should have provided a privilege log that would outline the documents in his possession but claim they were privileged and could not turn them over.


© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Source link

Sussmann Acquittal Gives Dems Immunity From Corruption Charges

The acquittal of attorney Michael Sussmann by a Washington D.C. jury effectively means that no Democrat can ever be convicted of any crime involving corruption as long as the crime has political implications and the trial is before a D.C. jury.

We now have one-party justice in America.

Despite overwhelming evidence that he lied to the FBI, Sussmann was found not guilty by a jury filled with Democrats.

Hillary Clinton got 91% of the votes of the residents of Washington D.C. in 2016.

Biden got 95%, proving that the jury pools are so highly partisan there that they’re  incapable of judging the facts and acting impartially in a criminal case involving political charges against prominent Democrats.

Since the Department of Justice (DOJ) is located in the nation’s capital, this effectively means there is no way to hold Democrats responsible for their corrupt activities.

Instead of pretending that Washington D.C. is like any other venue when the charges involve corruption and the Democratic Party, prosecutors must bring these cases in other jurisdictions.

Defense attorneys must be allowed to successfully pursue motions to change venue.

Michael Sussmann’s law firm, Perkins Cole, is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

Despite its Democratic leanings, a fair trial in Seattle is achievable. It’s not in D.C.

In the future the DOJ must bring its prosecutions outside of the Washington area to make justice possible. The case against Sussmann was overwhelming. He told the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of any client, much less the Clinton campaign, but then he billed his law firm for his time charging it to the Clinton campaign account.

His perjury could not be more obvious.

The fact that a Democratic jury overlooked these facts shows how biased it was and how impossible it is to get a fair trial of a Democrat in Washington.

It also puts into perspective the decisions of DOJ prosecutors not to charge Hillary in the email scandal or the State Department pay for play scandal.

They simply could not have gotten convictions. Nobody can.

The only solution is for the courts to recognize the difficulty in securing a fair trial in D.C.

The situation presents a grim metaphor: During the civil rights era, the Department of Justice recognized that it could not get a fair trial from an all white jury in the south when the charges involved racist crimes. That led to a prosecutorial strategy to avoid such juries.

In fact, the DOJ simply bypassed local laws and chose to prosecute even crimes like murder not under the criminal law of each state, but under the federal civil rights statutes thereby assuring a fair trial before an out of state jury — or no jury at all.

Prosecutors should attempt to bring their charges under federal statutes rather than under local D.C. criminal codes and federal judges must, in the interests of justice, let the venues from which juries are selected be changed to permit fair trials.

Democrats and Republicans are often corrupt, probably equally so. But we cannot tolerate a situation where the partisan bias of the jury grants Democrats a de facto immunity.

Dick Morris is a former presidential adviser and political strategist. He is a regular contributor to Newsmax TV. Read Dick Morris’ ReportsMore Here.


© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Source link

New DOJ Memo Empowers Federal Agents to Intervene in Excessive-Force Uses

The Department of Justice has updated its use-of-force policy for the first time since 2004, thus empowering federal agents to intervene when other law enforcement officials use excessive force.

The new policy was outlined Friday in a rank-and-file memo from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The changes possibly reflect years of protests over police killings of suspects.

Garland’s four-page memo was addressed to the heads of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons.

It also provided updated training practices in federal law enforcement.

”Officers will be trained in, and must recognize and act upon, the affirmative duty to intervene to prevent or stop, as appropriate, any officer from engaging in excessive force or any other use of force that violates the Constitution, other federal laws, or Department policies on the reasonable use of force,” the memo states.

It’s worth noting: The policy, which reportedly goes into effect July 19, does not oblige state and local police — or other federal law enforcement agencies outside the Justice Department’s purview — to follow a similar standard.

In the ”duty to intervene” update, federal law enforcement officers now have clear obligations to prevent excessive shows of force, and speak up when someone requires urgent medical care.

”Officers will be trained in, and must recognize and act upon, the affirmative duty to request and/or render medical aid, as appropriate, where needed,” according to the memo.

Larry Cosme, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, said the policy updated didn’t reflect a single incident or brief timeline of police activity.

Rather, it’s an effort to bring sustainable rules and guidelines into federal law enforcement.

”It’s the modernization of policing, and you need to update policies to reflect what’s going on in our country,” Cosme said.

”Every officer that’s a good officer is always going to try to do their jobs to the best of their ability, and this reinforces what the men and women in federal law enforcement are already doing.”

In previous years, the Justice Department recommended that officers not fire weapons at people solely because they’re fleeing. The same held true for firing into vehicles with the sole intention of stopping the cars.

Going further, the updated policy dictates that deadly force should not be used ”against persons whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless an individual poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity.”

The Garland memo also says that ”officers may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”

All told, ”it is the policy of the Department of Justice to value and preserve human life. Officers may use only the force that is objectively reasonable to effectively gain control of an incident, while protecting the safety of the officer and others.

”Officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and may use only the level of force that a reasonable officers on the scene would use under the same or similar circumstances,” the memo states.


© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Source link

DOJ Announces Hate Crimes and ‘Bias-Related’ Initiatives Including Reporting Hotline


The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 20 announced new initiatives worth $10 million to curb hates crimes and other “bias-related incidents.”

This comes just days after the House passed legislation to authorize dedicated offices within U.S. federal government departments to monitor domestic terrorism and hate crimes.

As part of the DOJ’s efforts, it released “new guidance” with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to raise awareness of hate crimes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There is also $5 million for grant opportunities to set up state-run “hate crime reporting hotlines” and support “community-based approaches to prevent and address hate crimes.” The DOJ will also hire its first “language access coordinator.”

“Throughout our history, and to this day, hate crimes have a singular impact because of the terror and fear they inflict on entire communities,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a release.

“No one in this country should have to fear the threat of hate fueled violence. The Justice Department will continue to use every resource at its disposal to confront unlawful acts of hate, and to hold accountable those who perpetrate them.”

Establishment media reports of violence against Asian Americans spiked since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic.

In 2021, one Kentucky State University professor scoured publicly available information on around 100 attacks on Asians reported by the police between 2020 and 2021 and determined that in over 60 percent of the cases the suspect was identified as black.

Historically, hate crimes are underreported with most victims, especially immigrants, hesitant to go to authorities. Reliable national data on anti-Asian hate crimes is also scarce.

The DOJ’s announcement comes on the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the COVID-19 Hate Crimes and Khalid Jabara-Heather Heyer NO HATE Acts. Since January 2021, the DOJ has said it has secured more than 35 convictions of defendants charged with “bias-motivated crimes.”

The DOJ defined a hate crime as a crime that is “motivated by bias against race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.” The most common form, nearly 30 percent, is vandalism or property damage.

However, there are now more crimes considered bias-related or hate crimes.

There has also been a national campaign of billboards, outdoor ads, radio streaming, and social media ads, along with conferences, resources, and training to help the community and law enforcement identify them.

The DOJ said it has gone “above and beyond” its remit under the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act and expedited “the review of certain hate crimes by including additional types of hate crimes.” It included a full list of its actions to combat hate crimes in a release.

HHS Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said that amid a “spike in hate crimes against many communities” during the pandemic some people were still afraid to leave their homes “out of fear for their physical safety.”

Becerra, who also co-chairs the White House Initiative and President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, said the Biden administration was committed to “combatting hate crimes against all Americans.”

Follow

Caden Pearson is a journalist based in Australia. He has a background in screenwriting and documentary. Contact him on caden.pearson@epochtimes.com.au



Source link

Govs Youngkin, Hogan Demand DOJ Stop Protests at Justice Homes

Two Republican governors have asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to have the Justice Department stop protests outside the homes of conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices living in their states.

Gov. Larry Hogan, R-Maryland, and Gov. Glenn Youngkin, R-Virginia, on Wednesday sent a letter to Garland asking him to enforce a 1950 federal statute that outlaws demonstrations that are aimed at influencing a judge’s pending decision.

“Today,@GovernorVA and I sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland calling on the Department of Justice to provide adequate resources to keep the Supreme Court justices and their families safe amid ongoing protests at their homes,” Hogan tweeted on Wednesday, along with a copy of the letter signed by himself and Youngkin.

“It is in your hands to ensure that applicable federal law is enforced to preserve the integrity of our American judicial system and the safety of our citizens,” the governors say in the letter.

“While protesting a final opinion from the Supreme Court is commonplace when done on the steps of the Court or in the public square, the circumstances of the current picketing at the Justices’ private homes in residential neighborhoods are markedly different,” they added.

The protests were sparked after a February draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito was recently leaked indicating that the court likely will overturn the historic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Youngkin had already attempted to have county authorities enforce a state law but was rebuffed.

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff McKay said Youngkin’s request for a security perimeter was unnecessary and improper. He said establishing a perimeter would amount to creating an unconstitutional neighborhood “checkpoint” that would infringe on First Amendment protest rights.

He also noted that protests that have occurred outside Alito’s home in the Fort Hunt neighborhood have been peaceful.

As for the demonstrators, they say it’s all moot because they don’t expect to change the justices’ minds before the final vote anyway.

“There’s no changing their minds. We’re expressing our fury, our rage,” 70-year-old Donna Damico told The Washington Post while protesting outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Montgomery County, Maryland, home last week. “We’re impotent, and this is really all we got other than praying that people vote in November.”

Others who were protesting Wednesday night agreed.

“I don’t think a bunch of neighbors walking by with candles is going to change Kavanaugh’s mind — or endanger him,” Lynn Kanter told the Post.

A 1965 Supreme Court decision, Cox v. Louisiana, upheld a state law modeled on the federal statute, ruling that “a State may adopt safeguards necessary and appropriate to assure that the administration of justice at all stages is free from outside control and influence.”

“There is no room at any stage of judicial proceedings for such intervention; mob law is the very antithesis of due process,” the justices wrote in that decision.

The Associated Press contributed.


© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.





Source link

Tom Cotton Demands DOJ Arrest Abortion Protesters at Justices’ Homes

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., blasted Attorney General Merrick Garland for the Justice Department not arresting abortion-rights protesters demonstrating in front of Supreme Court justices’ homes.

In a letter to Garland on Tuesday, Cotton threatened impeachment proceedings if the attorney general didn’t “take immediate action to enforce the law even-handedly against your party’s political opponents.”

“Please explain why you have refused to enforce the federal law against picketing and protesting at the homes of Supreme Court Justices,” Cotton wrote Garland. “Left-wing mobs have recently targeted the homes of Justices (John) Roberts, (Samuel) Alito, (Clarence) Thomas, (Neil) Gorsuch, (Amy Coney) Barrett, and (Brett) Kavanaugh, a blatant and obvious violation of 18 USC § 1507.

“These unlawful protestors widely publicized their plans, yet it appears that no federal law-enforcement officers were present to arrest the lawbreakers and no investigation is ongoing. Further, President Biden’s own press secretary announced this week that the Biden administration ‘certainly continue[s] to encourage (protests) outside of judges’ homes, and that’s the president’s position.'”

Cotton said Garland’s inaction was “in stark contrast to when you sicced federal agents on parents who attended public meetings of school boards in public buildings.”

“Without an adequate explanation, one can only assume that you have weaponized federal law-enforcement against your party’s political opponents,” Cotton wrote Garland.

“When you last testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee, I recommended that you resign in disgrace. Unfortunately, I see you haven’t taken my advice.”

Chief Justice Roberts last week confirmed the authenticity of a leaked draft opinion suggesting the Supreme Court may be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide.

The news energized activists on both sides of the abortion issue.

Cotton told NBC News that while he didn’t “advocate for arresting people protesting on public streets in Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital,” he did believe that “they should be arrested for protesting in the homes of judges, jurors and prosecutors. Federal law prohibits an obvious attempt to influence or intimidate judges, jurors and prosecutors.”

While White House press secretary Jen Psaki has called protests at Supreme Court justices’ homes exercises of freedom of expression, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., denounced those actions as attempts to intimidate.

“Trying to scare federal judges into ruling a certain way is far outside the bounds of First Amendment speech or protest,” McConnell said Monday on the Senate floor.

“It is an attempt to replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs.”

More than 75% of likely voters opposed publishing the home addresses of the conservative Supreme Court justices and were against calling for protests at the justices’ homes by pro-abortion activists, according to poll results released Tuesday by the Convention of States Action and the Trafalgar Group.


© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Source link

Oath Keepers Member Pleads Guilty to Sedition in US Capitol Attack

A member of the far-right Oath Keepers militia on Wednesday admitted to engaging in seditious conspiracy during last year’s attack on the U.S. Capitol, the latest in a string of courtroom victories for the Justice Department.

William Todd Wilson of North Carolina pleaded guilty during a federal court hearing in Washington. He was the third Oath Keepers defendant to plead guilty to seditious conspiracy and obstruction charges.

Several other defendants are still on track for a trial later this year, including Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers.

An indictment against Rhodes and others unsealed in January is the only criminal case accusing participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack of engaging in seditious conspiracy, defined as attempting “to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force the government of the United States.”

About 800 people have been charged with taking part in the Capitol riot in which supporters of Republican then-President Donald Trump tried to prevent formal congressional certification of his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, attacking police and sending lawmakers scrambling for safety. Trump has made false claims that he lost due to widespread voting fraud.

According to prosecutors, Rhodes had warned his group to prepare for a “bloody and desperate fight” in the days leading up to the Capitol assault.

About 250 Capitol riot defendants have pleaded guilty so far.

The Justice Department has obtained convictions in all four Capitol riot cases that ended in a jury trial. Most recently, a jury on Monday convicted Thomas Webster, rejecting arguments that the former New York City police officer was acting in self-defense when he struck a Washington police officer with a flagpole and tackled him.


© 2022 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.



Source link