ReportWire

Tag: 2021 United States Capitol riot

  • President Joe Biden will stress democracy is still a 'sacred cause' in a speech near Valley Forge

    President Joe Biden will stress democracy is still a 'sacred cause' in a speech near Valley Forge

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden will kick off his 2024 pitch to voters Friday, the day before the anniversary of the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by posing the question of whether democracy is still a “sacred cause” worth sacrificing for.

    Biden believes the upcoming election is largely about that question, according to a Biden adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the Democratic president’s expected remarks. Whether or not the nation agrees may end up a central question of the 2024 race.

    The president will speak from near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where George Washington and the Continental Army spent a bleak winter nearly 250 years ago. And he’ll talk about how Washington spoke to his army about democracy as a “sacred cause.”

    The Jan. 6 attack was a vivid reminder of how that democracy can be tested, Biden is expected to say, according to the adviser.

    Biden will also lay out then-President Donald Trump‘s role in the attack, as a mob of the Republican’s supporters overran the Capitol. More than 100 police officers were bloodied, beaten and attacked by the rioters who overwhelmed authorities to break into the building in an effort to stop the certification of votes for Biden, who had won the 2020 election.

    At least nine people who were at the Capitol that day died during or after the rioting, including several officers who died of suicide, a woman who was shot and killed by police as she tried to break into the House chamber, and three other Trump supporters whom authorities said suffered medical emergencies.

    Although the chaos of Jan. 6 came down on members of both political parties, it is being remembered in a largely polarized fashion now, like other aspects of political life in a divided country.

    Biden will characterize his predecessor as a serious threat to the nation’s founding principles, arguing that Trump — who has built a commanding early lead in the Republican 2024 presidential primary — will seek to undermine U.S. democracy should he win a second term.

    Trump, who faces 91 criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his loss to Biden and three other felony cases, argues that Biden and top Democrats are themselves seeking to undermine democracy by using the legal system to thwart the campaign of his chief rival.

    In the days after the attack, 52% of U.S. adults said Trump bore a lot of responsibility for Jan. 6, according to the Pew Research Center. By early 2022, that had declined to 43%. The number of Americans who said Trump bore no responsibility increased from 24% in 2021 to 32% in 2022.

    A Washington Post-University of Maryland poll released this week found that about 7 in 10 Republicans say too much is being made of the attack. Just 18% of GOP supporters say that protesters who entered the Capitol were “mostly violent,” down from 26% in 2021, while 77% of Democrats and 54% of independents say the protesters were mostly violent, essentially unchanged from 2021.

    On the first anniversary, Biden stood in Statuary Hall, a historic spot where the House of Representatives used to meet before the Civil War. On Jan. 6, rioters filled the area, some looking for lawmakers who had run for cover.

    “They weren’t looking to uphold the will of the people,” Biden said of the rioters. “They were looking to deny the will of the people.”

    On the second anniversary, Biden presented the nation’s second highest civilian award to 12 people who were involved in defending the Capitol during the attack.

    Friday’s speech will include supporters and young people motivated by the attack to get involved in politics, campaign advisers said.

    Washington, Biden is expected to note, was a president who willingly gave up his power for the good of the country.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prosecutors urge appeals court to reject Trump's immunity claims in election subversion case

    Prosecutors urge appeals court to reject Trump's immunity claims in election subversion case

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith urged a federal appeals court Saturday to reject former President Donald Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution, saying the suggestion that he cannot be held to account for crimes in office “threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation” of the country.

    The filing from Smith’s team was submitted ahead of arguments next month on the legally untested question of whether a former president can be prosecuted for acts taken while in the White House.

    Though the matter is now being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, it’s likely to come again before the Supreme Court, which earlier this month rejected prosecutors’ request for a speedy ruling in their favor holding that Trump can be forced to stand trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    The outcome of the dispute is critical for both sides especially since the case has been effectively paused while Trump advances his immunity claims in the appeals court.

    Prosecutors are hoping a swift judgment rejecting those arguments will restart the case and keep it on track for trial, currently scheduled for March 4 in federal court in Washington. But Trump’s lawyers stand to benefit from a protracted appeals process that could significantly delay the case and potentially push it beyond the November election.

    Trump’s lawyers maintain that the appeals court should order the dismissal of the case, arguing that as a former president he is exempt from prosecution for acts that fell within his official duties as president.

    Smith’s team has said no such immunity exists in the Constitution or in case law and that, in any event, the actions that Trump took in his failed effort to cling to power aren’t part of a president’s official responsibilities.

    The four-count indictment charges Trump with conspiring to disrupt the certification in Congress of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, when rioters motivated by his falsehoods about the election results stormed the U.S. Capitol in a violent clash with police. It alleges that he participated in a scheme to enlist slates of fake electors in battleground states who would falsely attest that Trump had won those states and encouraged then-Vice President Mike Pence to thwart the counting of votes.

    Those actions, prosecutors wrote, fall well outside a president’s official duties and were intended solely to help him win reelection.

    “A President who unlawfully seeks to retain power through criminal means unchecked by potential criminal prosecution could jeopardize both the Presidency itself and the very foundations of our democratic system of government officials to use fraudulent means to thwart the transfer of power and remain in office,” Smith’s team wrote.

    In their brief, prosecutors also said that though the presidency plays a “vital role in our constitutional system,” so, too, does the principle of accountability in the event of wrongdoing.

    “Rather than vindicating our constitutional framework, the defendant’s sweeping immunity claim threatens to license Presidents to commit crimes to remain in office,” they wrote. “The Founders did not intend and would never have countenanced such a result.”

    While Trump’s lawyers have argued that the indictment threatens “the very bedrock of our Republic,” prosecutors say the defense has it backwards.

    “It is the defendant’s claim that he cannot be held to answer for the charges that he engaged in an unprecedented effort to retain power through criminal means, despite having lost the election, that threatens the democratic and constitutional foundation of our Republic,” they said.

    A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments on Jan. 9. Two of the judges, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, were appointed by President Joe Biden. The third, Karen LeCraft Henderson, was assigned to the bench by former President George H.W. Bush.

    U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan earlier rejected the immunity arguments, asserting that the office of the presidency does not confer a “’get-out-of-jail free card.” Trump’s lawyers then appealed that decision, prompting Smith to seek to bypass the court and request an expedited decision from the Supreme Court.

    The justices last week denied that request without explanation, leaving the matter with the appeals court.

    Trump faces three other criminal prosecutions. He is charged in Florida with illegally retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and faces a state prosecution in Georgia that accuses him of trying to subvert that state’s 2020 presidential election and a New York case that accuses him of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to a porn actress.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Boston contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • With the Supreme Court on sideline for now, Trump's lawyers press immunity claims before lower court

    With the Supreme Court on sideline for now, Trump's lawyers press immunity claims before lower court

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump was acting within his role as president when he pressed claims about “alleged fraud and irregularity” in the 2020 election, his lawyers told a federal appeals court in arguing that he is immune from prosecution.

    The attorneys also asserted in a filing late Saturday night that the “historical fallout is tremendous” from the four-count indictment charging Trump with plotting to overturn the election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

    No other former president has ever been indicted; Trump has been indicted four times, in both state and federal court, as he campaigns to reclaim the White House.

    “The indictment of President Trump threatens to launch cycles of recrimination and politically motivated prosecution that will plague our Nation for many decades to come and stands likely to shatter the very bedrock of our Republic — the confidence of American citizens in an independent judicial system,” the attorneys wrote in a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    At issue before the court, which has set arguments for Jan. 9, is whether Trump is immune from prosecution for what defense lawyers say are official acts that fell within the outer perimeter of a president’s duties and responsibilities.

    U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan earlier this month rejected that argument, siding with prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s team and declaring that the office of the presidency “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

    The appeals court’s role in the dispute is center stage after the Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from Smith to fast-track a decision on the immunity question. After Trump appealed Chutkan’s order, Smith urged swift intervention from the high court in an effort to get a speedy decision that could keep the case on track for a trial scheduled to start on March 4.

    But with that request denied, the two sides are advancing their arguments before the appeals court, where a three-judge panel will decide as early as next month whether to affirm or overrule Chutkan’s decision.

    In their latest filing, Trump’s lawyers say that all of the acts Trump is accused of — including urging the Justice Department to investigate claims of voter fraud and telling state election officials that he believed the contests had been tainted by irregularities — are “quintessential” presidential acts that protect him from prosecution.

    “They all reflect President Trump’s efforts and duties, squarely as Chief Executive of the United States, to advocate for and defend the integrity of the federal election, in accord with his view that it was tainted by fraud and irregularity,” they said.

    They also contend that, under the Constitution, he cannot be criminally prosecuted for conduct for which he was already impeached, but then acquitted, by Congress.

    Federal prosecutors, by contrast, say Trump broke the law after the election by scheming to disrupt the Jan. 6, 2021, counting of electoral votes, including by pressing then-Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the results and by participating in a plot to organize slates of fake electors in battleground states won by Biden who would falsely attest that Trump had actually won those states.

    Though Trump’s lawyers have suggested that he had a good faith basis to be concerned that fraud had affected the election, courts around the country and Trump’s own attorney general and other government officials have found no evidence that that was the case.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court sidesteps decision on Trump presidential immunity claim in federal election interference case

    Supreme Court sidesteps decision on Trump presidential immunity claim in federal election interference case

    [ad_1]

    U.S. President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, July 9, 2020.

    Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

    Steering clear of a political firestorm for now, the Supreme Court said Friday it would not immediately decide the key issue of whether former President Donald Trump has broad immunity for actions he took challenging the 2020 presidential election results.

    The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly decide the legal question, which looms large in Trump’s criminal prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference.

    If Trump were to win on this threshold issue, the charges would be dismissed. If he loses, the legal proceedings in the trial court would continue, with Trump having other issues he could mount appeals over.

    As a result of the court’s refusal to intervene, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will take first crack at the issue; it is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Jan. 9.

    Once that court rules, the Supreme Court could act quickly on whether to take up the case.

    In asking the court to step in on an expedited basis, Smith said the case “presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office.”

    Trump’s lawyers argued in court papers that Smith had given “no compelling reason” why the Supreme Court should immediately step in ahead of the appeals court.

    On Dec. 7, Washington-based U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss his indictment on presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. The case is on hold while Trump appeals the decision.

    Trump’s lawyers argue that his role in questioning the result of the election was within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibilities as president, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling about presidential immunity. Therefore, under Supreme Court precedent, Trump is immune from prosecution, his lawyers say.

    They also say the Senate’s acquittal of Trump following impeachment proceedings over his role in events that led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol means he cannot be separately prosecuted for the same actions.

    Smith argues that Trump’s role in seeking to overturn the election was not related to his official responsibilities as president and that the Constitution’s language on impeachment allows for separate criminal proceedings even if the president is acquitted.

    In August, a federal grand jury in Washington indicted Trump on four charges: conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction, and conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted. Trump pleaded not guilty.

    The election interference case is one of four criminal prosecutions Trump faces heading into the 2024 presidential election season, in which he is a front-runner for the Republican nomination.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump's lawyers tell Supreme Court to stay out of immunity dispute in 2020 election case for now

    Trump's lawyers tell Supreme Court to stay out of immunity dispute in 2020 election case for now

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Lawyers for former President Donald Trump urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to stand down from a dispute over whether he can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.

    Special counsel Jack Smith’s team last week urged the nation’s high court to take up and quickly consider Trump’s claims that he enjoys immunity from prosecution as a former president. The unusual request for a speedy ruling seemed designed to prevent any delays that could postpone the trial of the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner, currently set to begin March 4, until after next year’s presidential election.

    But Trump’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that there was no reason for them to take up the matter now, especially because a lower appeals court in Washington is already considering the same question, and has scheduled arguments for Jan. 9.

    “Importance does not automatically necessitate speed. If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive, and historic issues — such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts — call for more careful deliberation, not less,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

    With Trump facing four criminal cases and 91 felony counts as he seeks to reclaim the White House, a core aspect of his defense strategy has been to try to delay the prosecutions, including until after the election, to prevent them from interfering with his candidacy. In urging the Supreme Court to defer consideration of the immunity question, the defense lawyers are looking to avoid a quick and definitive answer that could push the case toward trial early next year.

    “This appeal presents momentous, historic questions. An erroneous denial of a claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution unquestionably warrants this Court’s review,” the lawyers wrote. But, they added, that does not mean that the court should take “the case before the lower courts complete their review.”

    They also said that the special counsel’s push to get the case to trial swiftly creates the appearance of political motivation: “to ensure that President Trump — the leading Republican candidate for President, and the greatest electoral threat to President Biden — will face a months-long criminal trial at the height of his presidential campaign.”

    “As soon as the Special Counsel’s petition was filed, commentators from across the political spectrum observed that its evident motivation is to schedule the trial before the 2024 presidential election—a nakedly political motive,” they wrote.

    A separate question before the court is Trump’s argument that he cannot be prosecuted in court for conduct for which he was already impeached — but then acquitted — before Congress. That argument has already been rejected by U..S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the case.

    The Supreme Court has indicated that it will decide quickly whether to hear the case but has not said what it will ultimately do.

    Chutkan last week put the case on hold while Trump further pursues his claim that he is exempt from prosecution. But she left open the possibility of preserving the current trial date if the case returns to her court, saying that date and other deadlines were being paused rather than canceled.

    At issue is Trump’s claim that he is entitled to immunity for actions he took as part of his official duties as president. The Supreme Court has held that presidents are immune from civil liability for actions related to their official duties. But courts have never before had to wrestle with whether such immunity extends to criminal prosecution.

    Chutkan ruled this month that former presidents “enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability.”

    Trump’s team then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but special counsel Smith took the unusual step of attempting to bypass the appeals court — the usual next step in the process — and asking the Supreme Court take up the matter directly. Smith’s team has said there is nothing in the Constitution, or in court precedent, to support the idea that a former president cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct committed while in the White House.

    “The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request. This is an extraordinary case,” prosecutors wrote in asking for the Supreme Court’s intervention.

    The Supreme Court is expected to soon be asked to weigh in another Trump case with major political implications. Trump’s lawyers have vowed to appeal to the high court a decision on Tuesday barring him from Colorado’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding office.

    ____

    Richer reported from Boston.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fox News pushes back against reporter's suit claiming he was fired for challenging Jan. 6 coverage

    Fox News pushes back against reporter's suit claiming he was fired for challenging Jan. 6 coverage

    [ad_1]

    Fox News is pushing back against a former reporter’s lawsuit saying he was targeted and fired for challenging false claims about the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021

    ByLINDSAY WHITEHURST Associated Press

    December 8, 2023, 7:18 PM

    FILE – Rioters loyal to President Donald Trump stand on vehicles and the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. Jason Donner, a former Fox News producer says in a lawsuit filed Monday, Nov. 13, 2023, he was targeted and fired for pushing back against false claims about the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Donner said he was part of a “purge” of employees who refused to report information that would please Trump and his supporters. Donner was inside the Capitol during the riot and pressed his complaints about the networks coverage for months(AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)

    The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON — Fox News pushed back Friday against a former reporter’s lawsuit saying he was targeted and fired for challenging false claims about the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    The network argued that Jason Donner had not shown he faced illegal discrimination. The nation’s capital bans discrimination based on political party membership or endorsement, but Donner hasn’t shown he joined a political party, nor that his bosses knew and fired him for it, Fox lawyers said.

    “That law does not protect employees of news media organizations based on their differences of opinion over reporting and commentary on matters of public concern,” Fox attorneys wrote.

    Donner said in his lawsuit he was a longtime Republican who affiliated with Democrats more recently.

    The network also questioned whether he had properly informed managers when taking sick time after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and whether he filed the lawsuit within the time allowed by the law.

    Donner’s lawsuit said he was fired in 2022 as part of a “purge” of employees who refused to only report information that would “appease” former President Donald Trump and his supporters. He had been inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and called to scream at the control room when he learned Fox News was referred to the rioters as peaceful, he wrote in his suit.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawsuits against Trump over Jan. 6 riot can move forward, appeals court rules

    Lawsuits against Trump over Jan. 6 riot can move forward, appeals court rules

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Lawsuits against Donald Trump over the U.S. Capitol riot can move forward, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday, rejecting the former president’s bid to dismiss the cases accusing him of inciting the violent mob on Jan. 6, 2021.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court knocked down Trump’s sweeping claims that presidential immunity shields him from liability in the lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers. But the three-judge panel said the 2024 Republican presidential primary frontrunner can continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.

    Trump has said he can’t be sued over the riot that left dozens of police officers injured, arguing that his words during a rally before the storming of the Capitol addressed “matters of public concern” and fall within the scope of absolute presidential immunity.

    The decision comes as Trump’s lawyers are arguing he is also immune from prosecution in the separate criminal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith that accuses Trump of illegally plotting to overturn his election loss to President Joe Biden. Smith’s team has signaled that it will make the case at trial that Trump is responsible for the violence at the Capitol and point to Trump’s continued embrace of the Jan. 6 rioters on the campaign trail to argue that he intended for the chaos that day.

    Friday’s ruling underscores the challenges facing Trump as he tries to persuade courts, and potentially juries, that the actions he took in the run-up to the riot were part of his official duties as president. The judge presiding over his election subversion criminal trial, Tanya Chutkan, also rejected that claim in an order released Friday night.

    While courts have afforded presidents broad immunity for their official acts, the judges made clear that that protection does not cover just any act or speech undertaken by a president. A president running for a second term, for example, is not carrying out the official duties of the presidency when he is speaking at a rally funded by his reelection campaign or attends a private fundraiser, the appeals court said.

    “He is acting as office-seeker, not office-holder — no less than are the persons running against him when they take precisely the same actions in their competing campaigns to attain precisely the same office,” Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote for the court.

    But the court said its decision is not necessarily the final word on the issue of presidential immunity, leaving the door open for Trump to keep fighting the issue. And it took pains to note that it was not being asked to evaluate whether Trump was responsible for the riot or should be held to account in court. It also said Trump could still seek to argue that his actions were protected by the First Amendment — a claim he’s also made in his pending criminal case — or covered by other privileges.

    “When these cases move forward in the district court, he must be afforded the opportunity to develop his own facts on the immunity question if he desires to show that he took the actions alleged in the complaints in his official capacity as president rather than in his unofficial capacity as a candidate,” the court said.

    Trump could ask the full appeals court to take up the matter or go to the U.S. Supreme Court. A lawyer for Trump, Jesse Binnall, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment on the ruling. A Trump campaign spokesperson called the decision “limited, narrow and procedural.”

    “The facts fully show that on January 6 President Trump was acting on behalf of the American people, carrying out his duties as president of the United States. Moreover, his admonition that his supporters ‘peacefully and patriotically make (their) voices heard,’ along with a myriad other statements prove that these Democrat Hoaxes are completely meritless,” spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.

    The lawsuits seek civil damages for harms they say they endured when rioters descended on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Biden’s election victory, smashing windows, engaging in hand-to-hand combat with police officers and sending lawmakers running into hiding. One of the lawsuits, filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, alleges that Trump directly incited the violence at the Capitol “and then watched approvingly as the building was overrun.”

    Two other lawsuits were also filed, one by other House Democrats and another by officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, who were both injured in the riot. Blassingame said Friday that he “couldn’t be more committed to pursuing accountability” in the case.

    “More than two years later, it is unnerving to hear the same fabrications and dangerous rhetoric that put my life as well as the lives of my fellow officers in danger on January 6, 2021,” he said in a statement. He added: “I hope our case will assist with helping put our democracy back on the right track; making it crystal clear that no person, regardless of title or position of stature, is above the rule of law.”

    Lawyers in the Justice Department’s civil division urged the court earlier this year to let the cases proceed, arguing that a president wouldn’t be protected by absolute immunity if his words were found to have been an “incitement of imminent private violence.”

    The current appeal was decided by a unanimous three-court panel that included Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee to the bench who authored his own concurring opinion.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Klete Keller, Olympic gold medalist swimmer, gets 6 months in home detention for Jan. 6 Capitol riot

    Klete Keller, Olympic gold medalist swimmer, gets 6 months in home detention for Jan. 6 Capitol riot

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Olympic gold medalist swimmer Klete Keller, who threw his USA team jacket in a trash can after he stormed the U.S. Capitol, was sentenced on Friday to six months of home detention for joining the mob’s Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the seat of American democracy.

    At 6-foot-6, Keller towered over police officers guarding the Capitol and other Donald Trump supporters who breached the building, and he was quickly identified by authorities. He pleaded guilty in 2021 to a felony charge and was one of the first rioters to publicly agree to cooperate with authorities investigating the Capitol attack.

    Video captured Keller leading profane chants directed at then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both Democrats. He also joined a chorus of rioters in singing the national anthem in the middle of the Capitol. He resisted efforts to remove him from the Capitol, ripping an elbow away and shaking off a police officer, prosecutors said.

    U.S. District Judge Richard Leon sentenced Keller to three years of probation, including six months of home detention, and ordered him to perform 360 hours of community service — at a rate of 10 hours per month that he is under court supervision.

    Keller told the judge he knew his actions on Jan. 6 left lawmakers in fear and made it more difficult for police to do their job.

    “I have no excuse for why I am in front of you today,” he said. “I understand my actions were criminal and that I am fully responsible for my conduct.”

    A prosecutor, Troy Edwards Jr., asked the judge to sentence Keller to 10 months of imprisonment. Federal sentencing guidelines recommended a term of imprisonment ranging from 15 to 21 months.

    But the judge said he believes Keller’s time will be better spent speaking to teenagers and college students about his mistakes — and how to avoid repeating them — than serving time behind bars.

    “If there ever was a case that screams out for probation, this is it,” Leon said.

    During the Jan. 6 riot, Keller wore a jacket with an American flag on a sleeve, an Olympic team patch on the front and the letters “U.S.A.” across the back. Prosecutors said he tossed the jacket into a trash can on his way back to a hotel and later smashed his cellphone with a hammer because he knew he was “fleeing a crime scene.”

    “Klete Derik Keller once wore the American flag as an Olympian. On January 6, 2021, he threw that flag in a trash can,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

    Keller’s lawyer said he threw away the jacket out of shame after leaving the Capitol and encountering a young boy and his father on a train. The boy asked Keller about his Olympic career and requested a photo with him, defense attorney Zachary Deubler said in a court filing.

    Keller felt that “he let this young man down by behaving the way that he did, and the moment that this young man and father find out what he did, their admiration for him would be shattered,” Deubler wrote.

    Investigators never recovered the jacket or any cellphone videos or photos that he recorded at the Capitol. Keller surrendered to authorities about a week after returning home to Colorado.

    Keller has been cooperating with investigators since he pleaded guilty to obstructing the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress for certifying President Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory. Prosecutors pointed to Keller’s “substantial assistance” as grounds for leniency.

    Prosecutors said his early guilty plea “undoubtedly reached thousands of others weighing whether to turn themselves in, plead guilty, or even cooperate.” They added that his “public acknowledgement that his interference with the peaceful transfer of power was, in fact, a serious crime provided an important counterweight to the false narrative that January 6 was a peaceful, lawful protest.”

    Keller experienced personal and financial problems after retiring from professional swimming. After separating from his wife in 2014, Keller lived out of his car for nearly a year while working three jobs to pay for child support and other expenses, according to his attorney.

    After the Capitol riot, he lost a job and regular visitation with his children. Last year, he signed the paperwork for his children to be adopted by their stepfather, his attorney said.

    “I hope my case serves as a warning to anyone who rationalizes illegal conduct, especially in a moment of political fervor,” Keller wrote in a letter to the judge. “The consequences of my behavior will follow me and my family for the rest of our lives.”

    On Jan. 6, Keller attended then-President Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House with a friend before marching with a crowd to the Capitol. He entered the building through an open door on the Upper West Terrace and remained inside for nearly an hour.

    Keller came within 50 feet of the Senate chamber, which lawmakers evacuated as the mob swarmed the building. Police officers had to forcibly remove Keller and other rioters from the Capitol through the East Rotunda lobby.

    Keller won five medals, including two golds, while competing for the U.S. at three summer Olympics. At the 2000 games in Sydney, Australia, he won an individual bronze medal in the 400-meter freestyle event and a silver medal as the anchor leg of a relay.

    At the 2004 Olympics in Athens, Greece, Keller swam the anchor leg when the U.S. won gold medals in the 800-meter freestyle relay, He and teammates Michael Phelps, Ryan Lochte and Peter Vanderkaay narrowly held off a rival Australian team. At the 2008 games in Beijing, China, Mr. Keller won another gold medal in a freestyle relay.

    Approximately 1,200 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Nearly 900 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a judge or jury after trials. Over 700 of them have been sentenced, with roughly two-thirds receiving prison sentences ranging from three days to 22 years.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In new challenge to indictment, Trump’s lawyers argue he had good basis to question election results

    In new challenge to indictment, Trump’s lawyers argue he had good basis to question election results

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Donald Trump had a “good faith” basis to question the results of the 2020 election, his lawyers said in demanding that prosecutors turn over any evidence related to voting irregularities and potential foreign interference in the contest won by Democrat Joe Biden.

    A defense motion filed late Monday in federal court in Washington asserts that Trump was not obligated to accept at face value the judgments of government officials who found no widespread fraud in the election. It raises the prospect that foreign actors might have influenced the race and alleges that the federal government gave “false assurances” to the public about the security of the election that exceeded what was actually known.

    “It was not unreasonable at the time, and certainly not criminal, for President Trump to disagree with officials now favored by the prosecution and to rely instead on the independent judgment that the American people elected him to use while leading the country,” the lawyers wrote.

    The filing is the clearest indication yet that Trump’s lawyers are hoping to sow doubt before a jury in the legitimacy of the race or at make the case that his skepticism was justified and not motivated by criminal intent. The lawyers seek permission to force special counsel Jack Smith’s team to produce vast swaths of information that they say could aid his defense, including the “the impact of foreign influence” and “actual and attempted compromises of election infrastructure” as well as evidence of potential “political bias” that could have shaped the intelligence community’s assessment of the election.

    Courts around the country and Trump’s own attorney general have found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome, and the Homeland Security Department’s cybersecurity arm pronounced it “the most secure in American history.” Smith’s team alleges that Trump, a Republican, ignored all of those findings and launched an illegal plot to undo the election and block the peaceful transfer of power.

    But the Trump team asserts in the 37-page filing that he had reason to question the results.

    The motion recounts Russian efforts in 2016 to undermine confidence in that year’s election, though it glosses over the intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow had a “clear preference” for Trump over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

    It also revisits the intelligence community’s effort in 2020 to discern potential interference by countries including Russia, China and Iran. It quotes from a Jan. 7, 2021 memo from John Ratcliffe, the then-director of national intelligence and a close Trump ally, that said China sought to influence the election. And it seeks information from prosecutors about a Russian cyberespionage campaign in 2019 and 2020 that affected numerous federal government agencies, saying that intrusion calls into question the confidence being expressed by officials at that time in the security of the election.

    “The Office cannot blame President Trump for public discord and distrust of the 2020 election results while refusing to turn over evidence that foreign actors stoked the very same flames that the Office identifies as inculpatory in the indictment,” the motion states.

    It goes on to say: “The Office cannot rely on selected guidance and judgments by officials it favors from the Intelligence Community and law enforcement while ignoring evidence of political bias in those officials’ decision-making as well as cyberattacks and other interference, both actual and attempted, that targeted critical infrastructure and election facilities before, during, and after the 2020 election.”

    Defense lawyers are also seeking to force prosecutors to turn over documents related to the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, when pro-Trump loyalists stormed the building in a violent confrontation with police in an effort to disrupt the counting of electoral votes. The attorneys are looking in part for statements by prosecutors that they say could conflict with the Smith team’s assertion that Trump was responsible for the violence at the Capitol that day.

    The Trump lawyers have already asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss the indictment, saying he is shielded from prosecution by presidential immunity and arguing that the charges violate his First Amendment rights. Those requests are still pending.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals court to hear arguments on whether to reinstate gag order against Trump

    Appeals court to hear arguments on whether to reinstate gag order against Trump

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court is hearing arguments Monday on whether to reinstate a gag order against Donald Trump in the federal case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

    Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s team will urge a three-judge panel of the Washington-based appeals court to put back in place an order barring the former president from making inflammatory statements about lawyers in the case and potential witnesses.

    The prosecutors say those restrictions are necessary to prevent Trump from undermining confidence in the court system and intimidating people who may be called to testify against him. Defense lawyers have called the gag order an unconstitutional muzzling of Trump’s free speech rights and say prosecutors have presented no evidence to support the idea that his words have caused harm or made anyone feel threatened.

    The gag order is one of multiple contentious issues being argued ahead of the landmark March 2024 trial. Defense lawyers are also trying to get the case dismissed by arguing that Trump, as a former president, is immune from prosecution and protected by the First Amendment from being charged. The outcome of Monday’s arguments won’t affect those constitutional claims, but it will set parameters on what Trump as both a criminal defendant and leading presidential candidate can and cannot say ahead of the trial.

    The order has had a whirlwind trajectory through the courts since U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan imposed it last month in response to a request from prosecutors, who cited among other comments Trump’s repeated disparagement of Smith as “deranged.”

    The judge lifted it days after entering it, giving Trump’s lawyers time to prove why his words should not be restricted. But after Trump took advantage of that pause by posting on social media comments that prosecutors said were meant to sway his former chief of staff against giving unfavorable testimony, Chutkan put it back in place.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later lifted it as it considered Trump’s appeal.

    The judges hearing the case include Cornelia Pillard and Patricia Millett, both appointees of former President Barack Obama, and Brad Garcia, who joined the bench earlier this year after being nominated by President Joe Biden.

    The panel is not expected to immediately rule on Monday. Should the judges rule against Trump, he’ll have the option of asking the entire court to take up the matter. His lawyers have also signaled that they’ll ask the Supreme Court to get involved.

    The four-count indictment in Washington is one of four criminal cases Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House in 2024.

    He’s been charged in Florida, also by Smith’s team, with illegally hoarding dozens of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. He’s also been charged in state court in New York in connection with hush money payments to a porn actress who alleged an extramarital affair with him, and in Georgia with scheming to subvert the 2020 presidential election in that state.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Man accused of spraying officers with chemical irritant in Capitol riot makes 1st court appearance

    Man accused of spraying officers with chemical irritant in Capitol riot makes 1st court appearance

    [ad_1]

    A New Jersey man accused of spraying police officers with a chemical irritant in the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol made an initial federal court appearance Monday and was ordered held without bail until trial.

    The FBI released photos at the U.S. District Court hearing in Trenton, saying they showed Gregory Yetman spraying the liquid on officers during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot. Yetman, 47, was assigned a federal public defender at the appearance.

    He is charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers; obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds; and committing an act of physical violence in the Capitol grounds or buildings, according to the FBI.

    Yetman did not enter a plea. That is expected to occur when he is arraigned at a yet-unscheduled hearing in Washington.

    During the hearing, authorities unsealed an affidavit from an FBI officer whose identity was withheld. It included photos from body-worn cameras from officers from Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department that show a man the FBI identified as Yetman spraying liquid toward a group of officers during the riot.

    The FBI said the liquid was a chemical irritant.

    On Jan. 14, 2021, according to the affidavit, the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command received information that Yetman, a National Guard member, had admitted being at the Capitol riot in a series of Facebook posts.

    “As someone who supports our President and loves this country but hates where it’s going thanks to corruption and fraud by a tyrannical governing class, I can’t sit by and do nothing,” he wrote in one post submitted into evidence, adding “what happened at the Capitol was unfortunate and unacceptable.”

    Yetman wrote that while he was present at the Capitol, he had positioned himself between rioters and people who were there “just to protest the sham of an election.”

    “To my brothers and sisters in blue, I’m sorry for what happened at the Capitol,” he wrote. “We’re better than that.”

    On Jan. 22, 2021, FBI agents interviewed Yetman, according to the affidavit. He acknowledged being at the Capitol on Jan. 6 but said he was trying to help people exposed to chemical irritants by pouring water into their eyes, according to the court document.

    “Yetman told the interviewing agents that he supports law enforcement and that anyone entering the Capitol or assaulting officers should be prosecuted,” the affidavit read.

    Nonetheless, photos included with the document show a man identified by the FBI as Yetman spraying a stream of liquid at officers that the FBI identified as MK-46H, a type of chemical irritant used by law enforcement.

    The FBI special agent said another rioter had been using the canister to spray police, then put it on the ground, and that Yetman picked it up and sprayed its contents at officers for 12 to 14 seconds.

    The federal public defender assigned to represent Yetman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday, and a message left at Yetman’s home last week was not returned.

    Yetman eluded authorities for two days last week when they arrived at his Helmetta, New Jersey home to arrest him by running into a wooded area, according to the town’s mayor. Yetman surrendered peacefully on Friday.

    Approximately 1,200 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 800 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or judge after a trial. More than 700 of them have been sentenced, with roughly two-thirds receiving terms of imprisonment ranging from three days to 22 years.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fugitive suspect in Jan. 6 attack on Capitol surrenders to police in New Jersey

    Fugitive suspect in Jan. 6 attack on Capitol surrenders to police in New Jersey

    [ad_1]

    A suspect in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has surrendered to police in New Jersey

    ByThe Associated Press

    November 10, 2023, 10:09 AM

    MONROE, N.J. — A suspect in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol surrendered to police in New Jersey on Friday, two days after fleeing when FBI agents came to his house to arrest him.

    Gregory Yetman, 47, surrendered to police in Monroe Township on Friday morning without incident, said Amy Thoreson, a spokesperson for the Newark FBI office.

    Monroe is near Yetman’s home in Helmetta, a small town in central New Jersey about 43 miles (69 kilometers) south of New York City.

    The details of his surrender were not immediately available, including whether an attorney accompanied him or whether he has retained one. A telephone message left on an answering machine at Yetman’s home seeking comment was not immediately returned.

    He is charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers; obstruction of law enforcement during civil disorder; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds; and committing an act of physical violence in the Capitol grounds or buildings, according to the FBI.

    USA Today reported earlier this year that Yetman, whom it identified as a former military police sergeant in the New Jersey National Guard, had been interviewed by the FBI about his participation in the riot, and that he is suspected of firing pepper spray at protesters and police officers.

    Yetman told the newspaper he did nothing wrong at the Capitol, and denies pepper-spraying anyone.

    Approximately 1,200 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 800 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or judge after a trial. More than 700 of them have been sentenced, with roughly two-thirds receiving terms of imprisonment ranging from three days to 22 years.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-State Department official sentenced to nearly 6 years in prison for Capitol riot attacks

    Ex-State Department official sentenced to nearly 6 years in prison for Capitol riot attacks

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A Marine Corps veteran who served as a politically appointed State Department official in former President Donald Trump’s administration was sentenced on Friday to nearly six years in prison for attacking police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

    Federico Klein joined other Trump supporters in one of the most violent episodes of the Jan. 6 siege — a mob’s fight with outnumbered police for control of a tunnel entrance on the Capitol’s Lower West Terrace. Klein repeatedly assaulted officers, urged other rioters to join the fray and tried to stop police from shutting entrance doors, according to federal prosecutors.

    Klein “waged a relentless siege on police officers” as he tried to enter the Capitol and stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s electoral victory over Trump, prosecutors said in a court filing.

    Klein, who didn’t testify at his trial, declined to address the court before U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden sentenced him to five years and 10 months in prison.

    “Your actions on January 6th were shocking and egregious,” the judge told Klein.

    McFadden also ordered Klein to pay a $3,000 fine and $2,000 in restitution. He will report to prison at a date to be determined.

    Klein worked in the State Department’s office of Brazilian and Southern Cone Affairs from 2017 until he resigned from that position on Jan. 19, 2021, a day before Biden’s inauguration.

    Prosecutors said Klein’s participation in the riot was likely motivated by a desire to keep his job as a presidential appointee.

    “As an employee of the federal government, Klein was endowed with the trust of the American people and to uphold the law. He violated that trust on January 6 when he attacked the very country for which he was paid to work,” prosecutors wrote.

    Defense attorney Stanley Woodward has accused prosecutors of exaggerating Klein’s role in the riot due to his political connection to the Trump administration.

    “Accordingly, Mr. Klein should be sentenced for his actual role in the events of the day, and not the more egregious conduct of others with which the government would have Mr. Klein be found guilty by association,” Woodward wrote.

    Prosecutors had recommended a 10-year prison sentence for Klein, an Alexandria, Virginia, resident who was 42 years old at the time of the riot. Klein was arrested in March 2021.

    In July 2023, McFadden heard trial testimony without a jury before he convicted Klein and a co-defendant, Steven Cappuccio, of assault charges and other Capitol riot-related offenses.

    Klein and Cappuccio were among nine defendants charged in a 53-count indictment. The judge convicted Klein of 12 counts, including six assault charges.

    Also on Friday, McFadden sentenced Cappuccio, 53, of Universal City, Texas, to seven years and one month in prison, according to a Justice Department news release. Prosecutors had recommended a prison sentence of 10 years and one month for Cappuccio, who was arrested at his home in August 2021.

    Klein and Cappuccio separately attended Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6 before marching to the Capitol. Klein was in the first wave of rioters to enter the tunnel, according to prosecutors. They said he pushed hard against officers, telling them, “You can’t stop this!”

    Klein also wedged a stolen police riot shield between two doors, preventing officers from closing them, prosecutors said. Video captured Klein encouraging other rioters to attack police, repeatedly yelling, “We need fresh people!”

    McFadden told Klein on Friday that his conduct “prolonged the mayhem” in the tunnel.

    “You were front and center in that chaos,” the judge said.

    Cappuccio yelled, “Storming the castle, boys!” and chanted, “Fight for Trump!” and “Our house!” as he reached the Lower West Terrace. In the tunnel, he joined other rioters in pushing against the police line, prosecutors said.

    When another rioter pinned Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges against a door, Cappuccio ripped a gas mask off the officer’s face and dislodged his helmet, prosecutors said.

    Klein, who served in the Marine Corps for roughly nine years, was deployed to Iraq as a combat engineer in 2005. In January 2017, he went to work for the State Department as a desk officer specializing in the South American region.

    Klein also worked for Trump’s 2016 campaign and took time off from work after the 2020 presidential election and traveled to Nevada to help investigate the baseless claims of voter fraud promoted by Trump and his allies, prosecutors said.

    Nearly 1,200 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Over 800 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or judge after a trial. Approximately 700 of them have been sentenced, with roughly two-thirds receiving terms of imprisonment ranging from three days to 22 years.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump asks appeals court to lift gag order imposed on him in 2020 election interference case

    Trump asks appeals court to lift gag order imposed on him in 2020 election interference case

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump asked a federal appeals court on Thursday to lift a gag order restricting his speech about potential witnesses, prosecutors and court staff in the case that accuses him of scheming to overturn his 2020 election loss.

    Trump’s attorneys urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to block the gag order ruling from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan while the Republican former president pursues his appeals.

    Trump’s lawyers say they will seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court denies his request, arguing that the gag order violates Trump’s First Amendment rights and those of “over 100 million Americans who listen to him.”

    “The prosecution’s request for a Gag Order bristles with hostility to President Trump’s viewpoint and his relentless criticism of the government — including of the prosecution itself,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in court papers. “The Gag Order embodies this unconstitutional hostility to President Trump’s viewpoint.”

    Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, reimposed the gag order on Sunday after denying Trump’s request to let him speak freely while he challenges the restrictions in higher courts.

    The order bars Trump from making public statements targeting special counsel Jack Smith and his team, court employees and possible witnesses. It does not prohibit Trump from airing general complaints, even incendiary ones, about the case against him. The judge has explicitly said Trump is still allowed to assert his claims of innocence and his claims that the case is politically motivated.

    Trump has made verbal attacks on those involved in the criminal cases against him a central part of his bid to reclaim the White House in 2024. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the case, and cast himself as the victim of a politically motivated justice system working to deny him another term.

    In pushing to reinstate the gag order, prosecutors pointed to Trump’s recent social media comments about his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, which they said represented an attempt to influence and intimidate a likely witness in the case.

    Trump’s lawyers say the gag order unfairly prevents him from responding to broadsides from potential witnesses. who themselves are public figures.

    “The ‘witnesses’ who supposedly might be ‘intimidated’ by President Trump’s speech are former officials from the highest echelons of government who have repeatedly attacked President Trump and his fitness for the Presidency in public statements, national media interviews, and books,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

    Also on Thursday, the judge set rules around conducting research on possible jurors, who will be brought to the courthouse in Washington on Feb. 9 to fill out a questionnaire that will help the sides narrow down the jury pool before the trial. The trial is scheduled to begin on March 4.

    Prosecutors had raised concerns about what Trump might do with research on possible jurors, citing the former president’s “continued use of social media as a weapon of intimidation in court proceedings.”

    Trump’s lawyers have said the former president “has no intention of publicizing the names or other contact information of jurors.”

    Chutkan said in her order on Thursday that while prosecutors and the defense can do open-source research into potential jurors, they cannot use non-public databases or have direct contact with them.

    She ordered the sides not to reveal potential jurors’ names or any other identifying information. And she said that juror information can not be given to other entities not involved in the case — like Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

    ____

    Richer reported from Boston.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Two Missouri men accused of assaulting officers during riot at U.S. Capitol charged

    Two Missouri men accused of assaulting officers during riot at U.S. Capitol charged

    [ad_1]

    ST. LOUIS — Two Missouri men accused of assaulting police officers during the U.S. Capitol riot, including pushing bike racks that were being used as barricades into a police line, have been charged.

    Jared Luther Owens, 41, of Farmington, and Jason William Wallis, 49, of St. Clair, were charged Monday with obstruction of law enforcement during a civil disorder and assault on law enforcement with a deadly or dangerous weapon, both felonies. They also face several misdemeanor counts. The charges were filed in Washington, D.C.

    Owens was arrested Friday, and Wallis was arrested Saturday. Owens’ attorney, Paul Vysotsky, declined comment. Wallis requested an attorney through the Federal Public Defender’s office in St. Louis, but does not yet have one, a man answering phones at the office said Tuesday.

    Court records say the two men were seen on video during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot pursuing and screaming at Capitol police officers, at one point yelling, “Coming up the stairs, with you or not.”

    Officers moved bike racks to form a barricade as rioters were closing in on a section of the northeast corner of the Capitol. Court documents say Wallis grabbed onto the barricade and, with the help of Owens, shoved it into the line of officers. As a result, one officer sustained a fracture to her right hand and wrist, documents stated.

    Later, at the east front of the Capitol, Owens led a crowd of rioters in chanting, “Whose House? Our House!” the charges allege. The court documents say that once they got inside, Owens broke through a police line and pushed a Capitol officer against a wall.

    Prosecutors allege that Owens was armed with a knife when he joined the mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters who stormed the Capitol and disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory over the Republican incumbent. Trump had earlier that day addressed the crowd of his supporters at a rally near the White House, encouraging them to “fight like hell.”

    Federal prosecutors say that more than 1,100 people have been charged for crimes related to the assault on the Capitol, including more than 400 people charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge temporarily lifts narrow gag order on Trump in 2020 election interference case

    Judge temporarily lifts narrow gag order on Trump in 2020 election interference case

    [ad_1]

    The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case in Washington agreed Friday to temporarily lift her narrow gag order. The ruling gives Trump’s lawyers time to prove why the former president’s comments should not be restricted as the case heads toward trial.

    U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the gag order would remain on hold — for now — while she considers Trump’s bid to speak freely about the case as he challenges the restrictions in higher courts.

    The gag order Chutkan issued Monday barred him from making public statements targeting prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses. It’s the most serious restriction a court has placed on Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, which has become a centerpiece of his grievance-filled campaign to return to the White House.

    Trump’s lawyers, who quickly appealed the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court, wrote in court papers Friday that the gag order should be lifted while his legal challenges play out, calling the restrictions “egregious and intolerable.” They argued neither the judge nor prosecutors have “come close” to justifying the order, adding that the former president “has not unlawfully threatened or harassed anyone.”

    “By restricting President Trump’s speech, the Gag Order eviscerates the rights of his audiences, including hundreds of millions of American citizens who the Court now forbids from listening to President Trump’s thoughts on important issues,” the defense wrote.

    Chutkan ordered special counsel Jack Smith’s team to file by Wednesday any opposition to Trump’s bid for a longer pause on the gag order pending appeal.

    In her Monday ruling, Chutkan said Trump is allowed to criticize the Justice Department generally and assert his claims of innocence and his claims that the case is politically motivated. But she said his statements smearing prosecutors and likely witnesses have crossed a line and could spur his supporters to threaten or harass his targets.

    At rallies and in social media posts, Trump has sought to vilify Smith and others, casting himself as the victim of a politicized justice system working to deny him another term.

    Trump has decried the order as unconstitutional, and has used it to amplify his claims that he is being politically persecuted. The former president has denied any wrongdoing in the case charging him with illegally scheming to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

    It’s the second gag order imposed on Trump in the last month. The judge overseeing Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York earlier this month issued a more limited gag order prohibiting personal attacks against court personnel following a social media post from Trump that maligned the judge’s principal clerk.

    Trump was fined $5,000 on Friday after his disparaging post lingered on his campaign website for weeks after the judge ordered it deleted. Judge Arthur Engoron avoided holding Trump in contempt for now, but reserved the right to do so — and possibly even put the ex-president in jail — if he again violates the limited gag order.

    Trump’s lawyers also filed court papers Friday in response to prosecutors’ request for steps to protect the identity of prospective jurors. Prosecutors have said they are concerned about what Trump might do with research on possible jurors, pointing to his “continued use of social media as a weapon of intimidation in court proceedings.”

    Trump’s lawyers wrote in their filing that the former president has “no intention” of publicizing the names or other information about jurors. They added that “Trump expressly objects to any suggestion that the jury faces any risk of harm due to their participation in President Trump’s trial.”

    “Such comments, if placed before the jury, would be enormously prejudicial and would warrant an immediate mistrial,” Trump’s legal team wrote.

    ____

    Richer reported from Boston.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump is ‘not above the law,’ prosecutors say in urging judge to let federal election case proceed

    Trump is ‘not above the law,’ prosecutors say in urging judge to let federal election case proceed

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors said Thursday that Donald Trump is “not above the law” as they urged a judge to reject the former president’s efforts to dismiss the case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

    Lawyers for Trump had asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan earlier this month to toss the federal election subversion case, asserting that he was immune from prosecution for actions he took while fulfilling his duties as president.

    Special counsel Jack Smith’s team responded in its own filing Thursday that there is nothing in the Constitution, or in court precedent, to support the idea that Trump or any other former president cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct committed while in the White House.

    “The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens,” prosecutors wrote.

    The question now heads to a decision from Chutkan, who is being asked to wade into the legally untested realm of a former president’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution. She’s not likely to have the final word, though, as defense lawyers — if they fail to persuade Chutkan — will have the opportunity to press their arguments before a federal appeals court or, ultimately, a Supreme Court with a clear conservative majority.

    Trump was charged in August in a four-count indictment in federal court in Washington with scheming to overturn the election that he lost to Democrat Joe Biden in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in a violent but ultimately failed effort to halt the transfer of power.

    The Supreme Court has held that presidents are immune from civil liability for actions related to their official duties but it has never addressed the question of whether that immunity shields a president from criminal prosecution.

    Trump’s defense lawyers have seized on the absence of rulings to make the case that he must be considered exempt from prosecution, arguing that the the actions he’s accused of taking fall within the bounds of the presidency.

    But prosecutors rejected that argument on multiple grounds, saying the steps Trump took to stay in power — including by advancing false claims of voter fraud in an effort to block the formal counting of electoral votes — are well outside Oval Office duties and responsibilities.

    They also said Trump’s claims of immunity directly conflict with the nation’s Constitution, which allows for the criminal prosecution of a president for “acts committed during — and ultimately resulting in the president’s removal from — the presidency.”

    “The defendant, however, would turn the Impeachment Judgment Clause on its head and have the Court read it as a sweeping grant of immunity that forbids criminal prosecution in the absence of a Senate conviction — which, among other things, would effectively preclude any form of accountability for a president who commits crimes at the end of his term of office,” prosecutors said.

    Smith’s team also said that while some legal commentators have objected to Justice Department legal opinions stating that sitting presidents cannot face federal indictment, “there has been universal agreement that a former president may be subject to federal criminal prosecution — a principle recognized in the Constitution and rooted in historical practice.”

    The case, currently set for trial on March 4, 2024, is one of four criminal prosecutions that the former president is facing. Earlier this week, Chutkan, responding to a request from Smith’s team, imposed a limited gag order on Trump barring him from incendiary comments targeting prosecutors and potential witnesses.

    He’s also charged by Smith’s team in Florida with illegally hoarding classified documents, is accused in Fulton County, Georgia, of conspiring to undo his election loss in that state and is awaiting trial in New York on state charges alleging that he falsified business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn actor.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maryland police officer suspended after arrest on Capitol riot charges

    Maryland police officer suspended after arrest on Capitol riot charges

    [ad_1]

    SILVER SPRING, Md. — A Maryland police officer who fatally shot a stabbing suspect earlier this year was arrested Thursday on charges that he assaulted police during a mob’s Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    The Montgomery County Police Department said in a news release that it has suspended Officer Justin Lee without pay and is “taking steps to terminate his employment” after his indictment on felony charges.

    The police department said it hired Lee roughly one year after the Jan. 6 riot and didn’t know about his alleged involvement in the attack until July 2023, when it learned he was under FBI investigation.

    “The actions of one individual do not define the entire department,” the department said.

    Lee, 25, of Rockville, Maryland, had been on administrative leave since he shot and killed a man suspected of stabbing four people on July 22, 2023, according to the police department.

    Officers had responded to calls for a stabbing at a thrift store in Silver Spring, Maryland, before they confronted the suspect, who was holding a foot-long butcher’s knife. The suspect ignored officers’ commands to drop the knife and lunged at Lee before the officer shot him, police said in a news release.

    One of the four stabbing victims was critically injured, police said. After the shooting, Police Chief Darren Francke told reporters that all of the victims were expected to survive the attacks, which he described as “unprovoked.”

    Lee was arrested in Washington, D.C., on the Jan. 6 charges and was expected to make his initial court appearance on Thursday, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.

    Lee hasn’t been performing a police officer’s duties since the July shooting, the department said. His unpaid suspension stems from his arrest on Jan. 6 charges.

    A federal grand jury indicted Lee on seven counts, including felony charges of civil disorder and assaulting, resisting or impeding police. The indictment charges Lee with assaulting a Metropolitan Police Officer but doesn’t provide a detailed account of the attack.

    An attorney for Lee, Terrell Roberts III, didn’t immediately respond to an email and telephone call seeking comment.

    The police department said Lee applied to be a Montgomery County police officer in July 2021, six months after the riot. The police department said it thoroughly investigates the background of job applicants but is reviewing that process “to determine whether adjustments need to be made.”

    “Lee’s involvement in the January 6 insurrection was not discovered during this process, as he was not identified by the Justice Department in connection with the event,” the department said.

    More than 100 police officers were injured during clashes with rioters supporting then-President Donald Trump. Over 1,100 people, including several current or former law enforcement officers, have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump is appealing a narrow gag order imposed on him in his 2020 election interference case

    Trump is appealing a narrow gag order imposed on him in his 2020 election interference case

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers say they are appealing a narrow gag order imposed on him in his federal 2020 election interference case

    ByALANNA DURKIN RICHER Associated Press

    October 17, 2023, 3:44 PM

    FILE – This undated photo provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, shows U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Federal prosecutors and lawyers for Donald Trump will argue in court Monday, Oct. 16, over a proposed gag order aimed at reining in the former president’s diatribes against likely witnesses and others in his 2020 election interference case in Washington.(Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts via AP, File)

    The Associated Press

    Former President Donald Trump is appealing a narrow gag order that bars him from making statements attacking prosecutors, potential witnesses and court staff in his election interference case in Washington, according to court documents filed Tuesday.

    Trump’s lawyers said in court papers that they will challenge an order from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that restricts Trump’s public statements about the case accusing him of scheming to subvert the results of the 2020 election.

    Special counsel Jack Smith’s team sought the order against the Republican 2024 presidential front-runner over a litany of verbal attacks from him on likely witnesses and others. Prosecutors say Trump’s incendiary rhetoric is designed to undermine the public’s confidence in the judicial process and taint the jury pool.

    During a court hearing on Monday, Chutkan said Trump can criticize the Justice Department generally and assert his belief that the case is politically motivated. Her order also explicitly says Trump is allowed to criticize the campaign platforms or policies of his political rivals, like former Vice President Mike Pence — who is both a competitor for the GOP nomination and a likely witness in the case.

    Chutkan, however, said Trump can’t mount a “smear campaign” against prosecutors and court personnel. The judge, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, repeatedly expressed concern that Trump’s rhetoric could inspire his supporters to violence.

    Trump slammed the gag order as he returned to court Tuesday for his civil fraud trial, insisting he is “not saying anything wrong.” His lawyers told the judge that the former president is entitled to criticize prosecutors and that the court should not to be able to restrict his First Amendment rights.

    Legal experts have said Chutkan’s gag order may be just the beginning of an unprecedented fight over what limits can be a placed on the speech of a defendant who is also campaigning for America’s highest public office. The issue could ultimately end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    At rallies and in social media posts, Trump has repeatedly sought to vilify Smith, other prosecutors, likely witnesses and even the judge. He has called prosecutors a “team of thugs,” called Chutkan “very biased and unfair,” and referred to one potential witness as a “gutless pig.” Prosecutors also cited a post in which Trump suggested that Mark Milley, the then-retiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had committed treason and should be executed.

    The case, which accuses Trump of scheming to subvert the results of the election, is scheduled to go to trial in March. It’s one of four criminal cases Trump is facing while he campaigns to return to the White House in 2024. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

    ____

    Richer reported from Boston. Associated Press reporter Jill Colvin in New York contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-Michigan gubernatorial candidate sentenced to 2 months behind bars for Capitol riot role

    Ex-Michigan gubernatorial candidate sentenced to 2 months behind bars for Capitol riot role

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday sentenced a former Republican candidate for Michigan governor to two months behind bars for joining a mob’s Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, where he riled up other rioters and ripped a tarp outside the building.

    Ryan Kelley, who finished fourth in a primary field of five Republican gubernatorial candidates last year, pleaded guilty in July to a misdemeanor for his role in the siege.

    Several months before his guilty plea, Kelley posted on social media that the Capitol riot was an FBI “set up.” His campaign posted the words “political prisoner” on Facebook after his June 2022 arrest.

    U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper told Kelley that he misused his platform as a candidate for public office by promoting lies about election fraud, including the baseless claim that Jan. 6 was somehow part of an FBI plot.

    “A lot of folks voted for you. A lot of folks followed you,” Cooper said before sentencing Kelley to 60 days of imprisonment and ordering him to pay a $5,000 fine.

    Kelley, 42, traveled from Allendale, Michigan, to Washington, D.C., to attend then-President Donald Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House on Jan. 6. Kelley told the judge that he wanted to see “receipts” supporting Trump’s claims that Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election from him, the Republican incumbent.

    “Those receipts never came,” he said. “That is a betrayal, and I was misled into believing those things.”

    But he said he doesn’t blame Trump for his conduct on Jan. 6.

    “He did invite us there, but my actions were my actions,” Kelley said.

    Kelley, a real estate broker, isn’t accused of engaging in violence on Jan. 6. But federal prosecutors said he helped breach scaffolding, stirred up the mob with his shouts and gestured for other rioters to move closer to the Capitol and to police officers guarding the building.

    Kelley pleaded guilty to entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, a charge punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of one year.

    Prosecutors recommended sentencing Kelley to three months of incarceration.

    “Mr. Kelley engaged in not just a bad decision but a series of bad decisions that day,” a prosecutor, Shanai Watson, said.

    Kelley’s arrest roiled what was already a complicated Republican primary for the governor’s race. Conservative commentator Tudor Dixon won the Republican primary but ultimately lost to incumbent Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, last November.

    Kelley spoke at a “Stop the Steal” rally at the state Capitol in Lansing in November 2020, shortly after the presidential election. Kelley urged others at the rally to “stand and fight, with the goal of preventing Democrats from stealing the election,” the FBI said.

    After attending Trump’s rally on Jan. 6, he marched to the Capitol and joined a crowd that formed on the West Plaza, where flash bang grenades exploded near him.

    Kelley and other rioters climbed through scaffolding covered by a white tarp. Surveillance video captured him tearing the tarp.

    “Even though his rip of the tarp was relatively modest, it extended an already existing hole in the tarp and widened the opening through which some rioters advanced on the Capitol Building,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

    Kelley remained on Capitol grounds for nearly two hours but isn’t accused of entering the building that day.

    “Mr. Kelley understands and appreciates that he never should have participated in the protests that turned into a riot that day and that such violence has no place in our democracy,” his defense lawyer wrote.

    At a debate last year, Kelley said the riot was “a First Amendment activity by a majority of those people, myself included.”

    “We were there protesting the government because we don’t like the results of the 2020 election, the process of how it happened. And we have that First Amendment right. And that’s what 99% of the people were there for that day,” he said.

    In a court filing after the primary loss, Kelley’s lawyers said was “still actively involved in political issues throughout the state of Michigan, and is contemplating whether he will run for a different state or federal position.”

    Defense attorney Gary Springstead said on Tuesday that Kelley “wants nothing to do with politics at this point.” Kelley told the judge that he wants to focus on his business and his family.

    More than 1,100 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. More than 800 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or judge after contested trials. Nearly 700 of them have been sentenced, with roughly two-thirds receiving terms of imprisonment ranging from three days to 22 years.

    Also on Monday, a woman who smashed a window at the Capitol and used a bullhorn to direct other rioters on Jan. 6 was sentenced to four years and nine months in prison. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth also ordered Rachel Marie Powell to pay restitution and a fine totaling nearly $8,000.

    In July, Lamberth heard testimony without a jury before he convicted Powell of all nine counts in her indictment. A prosecutor has said Powell, 41, of Sandy Lake, Pennsylvania, played a “leading role” during the riot.

    [ad_2]

    Source link