BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
NORTON META TAG
07 March 2023
The DOJ thinks Trump can be sued for Jan. 6. That should scare him & Alleged Three Percenter who marched with Proud Boys on Jan. 6 pleads guilty 5&6MAR23
(NOT MY) pres drump / trump is too stupid to scared about being sued and / or prosecuted for his attempted coup of the U.S. government on 6 JAN 21. I am so anxious to see him in handcuffs!!!! Maybe drumpf / trump and gieswein could be cell mates! From the Washington Post
Trump supporters try to break through a police barrier at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Julio Cortez/AP)
There is virtually no democratic value that Donald Trump has so assiduously challenged as the rule of law. He has repeatedly tried and failed to thwart court action against him by invoking “absolute immunity.” Last week, the Justice Department soundly rejected Trump’s claim, and it could have serious implications for potential criminal charges against the former president.
The department in a brief urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reject Trump’s claim of absolute immunity in a civil suit against him for damages arising from the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. “Speaking to the public on matters of public concern is a traditional function of the Presidency, and the outer perimeter of the President’s Office includes a vast realm of such speech,” the brief acknowledged. “But that traditional function is one of public communication. It does not include incitement of imminent private violence of the sort the district court found that plaintiffs’ complaints have plausibly alleged here.”
The brief also hinted at the department’s possible stance for speech or conduct that did not carry the imminent threat of violence: “There may also be circumstances in which a President acts purely in his private capacity as a candidate for office even though he is speaking to the public about matters of public concern,” the Justice Department wrote.
That might include actions such as enlisting phony electors to overturn election results or pressuring the Justice Department to declare an election was fraudulent. It might also extend to strong-arming the vice president to disregard his oath and throw out electoral votes for the rightful winner of the presidential election.
The Justice Department’s position might be seen as a partial walk-back of its widely criticized decision that Trump’s allegedly defamatory comments about E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexual assault, fell within the scope of his presidential duties and therefore deserved a defense from the Justice Department. (Trump has denied Carroll’s allegations.)
If the Justice Department had taken that same approach in the civil case against Trump, Brookings Institution senior fellow Norm Eisen, who served as co-counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, tells me, “It would have created a problem for future potential criminal prosecutions of Trump, starting with Georgia.” Instead, the Justice Department came around to a more circumspect view of the legitimate scope of presidential conduct. This is all for the better.
The Justice Department’s position has important implications. If the department does not consider Trump’s actions subject to an absolute-immunity defense in a civil case, it should have no problem taking the same position in a criminal case, if the law and facts warrant. The events that took place on Jan. 6 and in the days leading up to the insurrection might provide the basis for criminal charges against Trump, such as conspiracy to defraud the United States or to obstruct an official proceeding.
Moreover, the Justice Department’s brief suggests Trump will find strong pushback should his legal team try to remove a potential criminal case filed in Georgia to a federal court. While Section 1442(a) of Title 28of the U.S. code allows a defendant to move from state to federal court if he or she is (or was at the time of the alleged offense) an officer of the U.S. government, that removal can be obtained only “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” Therefore, if Trump is determined to have acted beyond the confines of his job on Jan. 6, it follows that the Justice Department and Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis could make a strong stance to keep his case in state court (with a much more favorable jury pool).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit must still rule on the matter, but the department’s view will carry great weight. Simply put, the Justice Department came down on the side of limiting the scope of what can be considered official presidential duties. In doing so, it has furthered the principle that the president is no king whose actions are beyond the reach of criminal law.
A Colorado man prosecutors say was affiliated with the right-wing, anti-government Three Percenters movement pleaded guilty Monday to two counts of assaulting police during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, admitting that he marched with the Proud Boys, a different far-right group, for several hours before attacking officers.
Robert Gieswein, 26, of Woodland Park, Colo., stood out in that day’s video recordings, carrying a baseball bat and wearing paramilitary gear with a black pouch on his chest that said, “MY MOM THINKS I’M SPECIAL.” He faces an estimated range of 41 to 51 months at sentencing June 9 in a plea deal with prosecutors, who agreed to drop the rest of an 11-count indictment, including four other charges of assaulting police.
In plea papers, Gieswein said that before the attack he gave a media interview in which he said he hoped to keep President Donald Trump in office. He said he marched with Proud Boys for three hours that morning,rushed through a police line at Peace Circle and threw a water bottle at officers guarding the West Plaza. He then sprayed aerosol irritant at two groups of police defending an Upper West Terrace stairway, according to his plea papers.
Gieswein was recorded with the lead group that was the first to breach the building using a riot shield and a piece of lumber. He confronted police guarding the Ohio Clock Corridor outside the Senate chamber, and he helped prevent officers from deploying metal doors that would have sealed off the basement Capitol Visitor Center, he admitted in his plea.
He sprayed two more groups of officers there, he admitted, injuring one and attempting to punch another.
The same prosecutors handling Gieswein’s case are also handling the trial of five Proud Boys leaders on seditious conspiracy and other charges. Government charging papers for that group initially described one of them, Ethan Nordean, as engaging “in a brief exchange” with Gieswein near the Capitol. The papers alleged that Gieswein entered a window that had been smashed by Dominic Pezzola, another defendant in the case.
As Gieswein’s plea was entered Monday morning, Assistant U.S. Attorney Erik Kenerson said in the Proud Boys case that the government no longer planned to refer to video evidence of Gieswein among a dozen defendants it alleges the Proud Boys’ leaders used as “tools” to storm the Capitol.
Kenerson did not elaborate. Carmen Hernandez, attorney for another co-defendant, Zachary Rehl, said at the same hearing that Gieswein was invited to march with the Proud Boys by a Kansas member who was an FBI informant, drawing a government objection. Spokeswomen for the U.S. attorney’s office and for the FBI declined to comment. Blake Weiner, an attorney for Gieswein, said by email, “At this time I cannot comment on anything regarding Mr. Gieswein’s case that is not a matter of public record.”
Spencer S. Hsu is an investigative reporter, two-time Pulitzer finalist and national Emmy Award nominee. Hsu has covered homeland security, immigration, Virginia politics and Congress.Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment