That immediate area should have been closed off and still closed off for protesting. Once protesters have resorted to attempting to invade the White House and have set fire to a church, and have defaced public property then the government is entitled to take a higher level of precautions/security measures. Your ilk may think that the clear-button gets pressed at the end of the day and each day a fresh crop that needs to be reassessed. No. Moving them out was not smooth and was not the right way to go, but the mistake was to allow protesting in an area that had just been subjected to out of control rioters. There is no right to free speech and association in a zone where protesters have and still are actively planning how to destroy. Certainly it cannot become a permanent of long term exclusion, but while the secret service cars are still smoldering and the church is still smoldering then everyone should be excluded unless they are authorized to be there. We know you would prefer to see more deaths but the president and the secret service are well within their rights to move crowds back as a president passes through. As I said, it was not smooth and I would not have even allowed them in that areas. I definitely did not like the reports of tear gas but the feds absolutely deny that tear gas used so I have not formed an opinion there. Sometimes lefty reports are not accurate. Yes, you can impeach him now. Impeach kavanaugh, mitch mcconnell, whatever scam you got going. The previous ones have worked out so well for ya.
lol we impeached Trump. What happened to Horowitz? They used tear gas... https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21281604/lafayette-square-white-house-tear-gas-protest
con hypocrisy strikes again... https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/doj...t-when-hillary-clintons-emails-were-involved/ DOJ Backed Writ of Mandamus in Michael Flynn Case, But Opposed It When Hillary Clinton’s Emails Were Involved We interrupt the hellscape that is 2020 with the news that we are somehow still talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails. Clinton’s legal team argued before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday against a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. Clinton was noticed for an in-person deposition, and argued against attending. U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled against Clinton in March, saying she had to be deposed in person. After that, Clinton’s team pulled out an interesting and seldom-successful legal maneuver: they filed a petition for mandamus against the judge. Mandamus is a legalese for “forcing a government official to do their job properly.” Typically, litigants unsatisfied with adverse rulings simply appeal those rulings; petitioning for mandamus is far from a go-to legal strategy. And yet, two very high-profile cases hit courtrooms this week, both hoping that mandamus will save them.This particular case is extra odd, even for mandamus cases. The appellate court first invited and then ordered the DOJ to come to oral arguments over Clinton’s deposition. At those arguments on Tuesday, lawyers for Clinton (and her longtime aide Cheryl Mills, who was also noticed for a deposition) argued that Clinton and Mills have already turned over tens of thousands of messages, and that the real purpose for the depositions was to harass them on the national stage. Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, called the deposition “social media fundraising” and said that Judicial Watch sought it solely to create “video footage that can be used for partisan, political attack ads.” Whatever one thinks of Benghazi and the emails and the SCIF and all of that, though, there appears to be something just under the surface here that requires a little attention. The Justice Department was not nearly as interested in saving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from a deposition as it was from rescuing Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross or former Vice President Dick Cheney from depositions. The difference may be related to the fact that there’s another high-profile mandamus case going on in the D.C. Circuit. That one is about the prosecution of Michael Flynn. The D.C. Circuit ordered U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to explain why he did not to immediately dismiss the Flynn prosecution, despite the DOJ’s motion to drop the case. Sullivan responded, as ordered, by Monday. The appellate court ordered this explanation after Flynn’s legal team filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus in the hopes that Sullivan would be directed to dismiss the case. On Tuesday night, the D.C. Circuit ordered oral arguments in the case. On the Flynn case, Judge Sullivan’s lawyer Beth Wilkinson wrote that “It is unusual for a criminal defendant to claim innocence and move to withdraw his guilty plea after repeatedly swearing under oath that he committed the crime.” “It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and undermine the district court’s legal and factual findings, in moving on his own to dismiss the charge years after two different federal judges accepted the defendant’s plea,” they argued. The DOJ went to bat Flynn against Sullivan, saying that although a writ of mandamus is “drastic and extraordinary” it is entirely appropriate and warranted in this case. “The district court plans plans to subject the Executive’s enforcement decision to extensive judicial inquiry, scrutiny, oversight, and involvement. Under the Supreme Court’s and this Court’s precedents, it is clear and indisputable that the district court has no authority to embark on that course,” DOJ concluded. Oral arguments in the Clinton case were held telephonically due to the pandemic – and went nearly three times longer than the court had scheduled. During the arguments, both Judge Nina Pillard (a Barack Obama appointee) and Judge Thomas Griffith (a George W. Bush appointee) called mandamus an “extraordinary” remedy to be used only rarely. Those statements seemed to dovetail with Judicial Watch’s argument against mandamus, calling such a writ the “most potent weapon in the judicial arsenal.” Mark Freeman, arguing on behalf of the DOJ, said that Clinton’s would-be deposition was different from past cases in which the DOJ did oppose the depositions of high-level policymakers. And how’s this for some more legal crossover? Judge Sullivan was the one who slammed Clinton’s use of a private email server, saying that, “we wouldn’t be here today if this employee had followed government policy.” What’s more, Beth Wilkinson represented Clinton staffers during the FBI investigation into the former Secretary of State’s use of a private server. While the Flynn case was not specifically mentioned during Tuesday’s oral arguments, it loomed large in the courtroom. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins (another Obama appointee) is currently the only judge assigned to both the Clinton case and the Flynn case. However, as these cases proceed, it is possible that the entire D.C. Circuit could eventually join the fray.
huh, not that far off it seems: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/countdown-to-horowitz-beginning.332555/page-107#post-5125097 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/11/william-barr-attorney-general-trump-protests 'An abuse of power': alarm grows over top Trump lieutenant directing force at protesters Barr stands accused of directing violence against peaceful demonstrators outside the White House earlier this month, and with peddling a conspiracy theory advanced by Donald Trump in an attempt to smear protesters, who enjoy wide public support. In the first 16 months of his tenure, Barr caught criticism for compromising justice department independence with his seemingly lockstep defense of Trump, whether he was protecting the president from the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller or intervening in criminal cases against the former Trump aides Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. But Barr’s critics now fear that he has taken a new step, of trying on a military hat as the president’s top lieutenant in the antagonistic posture the White House has taken against street protests that have sprung up after the killing of George Floyd, an African American man, in Minneapolis by white police officers. Nearly 1,300 former justice department officials published an open letter to the department’s inspector general on Wednesday demanding an internal investigation of Barr’s actions in response to street protests. DOJ Alumni Letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz Dear Mr. Horowitz: We write to you as alumni of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”). Collectively, we have served in both career and high-ranking politically-appointed positions in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Some of us had careers that spanned decades and multiple administrations. We are deeply concerned about the Department’s actions, and those of Attorney General William Barr himself, in response to the nationwide lawful gatherings to protest the systemic racism that has plagued this country throughout its history, recently exemplified by the brutal killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor by sworn law enforcement officers acting under the color of law. These unjustified killings are anathema to the fair administration of justice, and have rightly outraged Americans of all races and political persuasions, many of whom have chosen to exercise their First Amendment rights through public protest. In particular, we are disturbed by Attorney General Barr’s possible role in ordering law enforcement personnel to suppress a peaceful domestic protest in Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, for the purpose of enabling President Trump to walk across the street from the White House and stage a photo op at St. John’s Church, a politically motivated event in which Attorney General Barr participated. While the full scope of the Attorney General’s role is not yet clear, he has admitted that he was present in front of the White House before law enforcement personnel took action to disperse the crowd. Department of Justice and White House personnel initially said that the Attorney General gave an order to law enforcement personnel to “get going” or “get it done.” A day later, the Attorney General told the Associated Press that he was “not involved in giving tactical commands.” If the Attorney General issued orders to officers of a variety of federal agencies, including U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, D.C. National Guard, and U.S. Military Police, it is unclear under what purported authority he did so. After the order was given, and before the start of a city-imposed curfew, federal law enforcement officers in riot gear reportedly fired rubber bullets, chemical gas, smoke canisters, and stun grenades at peaceful protesters, and otherwise used excessive force, physically injuring many people, including journalists and an Episcopal priest who had come to give food and water to the protestors. Based on what we now know, these actions violated both the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and the press, and the right to assemble; and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable seizures, to include objectively unreasonable uses of force by law enforcement officers. None of us would ever have considered directing or engaging in such actions to be consistent with our oaths to support and defend the Constitution. We are also disturbed by the Attorney General’s deployment of federal law enforcement officers throughout the country, and especially within the District of Columbia, to participate in quelling lawful First Amendment activity. According to a Department press release, participating personnel include officers and agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Marshals Service. We have profound doubts that the personnel deployed from these agencies are adequately trained in policing mass protests or protecting the constitutional rights of individuals who are not subject to arrest or have not been convicted of a crime. Moreover, reports from witnesses indicate that federal officers were blocking streets, guarding buildings, and interacting with civilians without displaying or otherwise providing identification, even when asked to do so by peaceful protestors. Accountability requires law enforcement personnel to identify themselves and be identifiable. Especially in view of the events in Lafayette Square, we have no assurance that these officers are lawfully deployed, that they will respect the rights of the civilians they encounter, or that there are proper mechanisms in place to identify and investigate possible law enforcement misconduct For all of these reasons, we are asking you to immediately open and conduct an investigation of the full scope of the Attorney General’s and the DOJ’s role in these events. The rule of law, the maintenance of the Department’s integrity, and the very safety of our citizens demand nothing less. The Office of the Inspector General has the authority and the independence to conduct this investigation in a manner that will credibly probe the actions of the Attorney General and other DOJ employees. If the Attorney General or any other DOJ employee has directly participated in actions that have deprived Americans of their constitutional rights or that physically injured Americans lawfully exercising their rights, that would be misconduct of the utmost seriousness, the details of which must be shared with the American people. Thank you for your consideration. (If you are a former DOJ employee and would like to add your name to this statement, please complete this form. Protect Democracy will update this list daily with new signatories until June 24th.) Signatories have been vetted to the best of our ability.
oldie but goodie: https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...end-constitutional-rights-coronavirus-970935/ DOJ Wants to Suspend Certain Constitutional Rights During Coronavirus Emergency The Department of Justice has secretly asked Congress for the ability to detain arrested people “indefinitely” in addition to other powers that one expert called “terrifying” The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally protected rights during the coronavirus and other emergencies, according to a report by Politico’s Betsy Woodruff Swan. While the asks from the Department of Justice will likely not come to fruition with a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, they demonstrate how much this White House has a frightening disregard for rights enumerated in the Constitution. The DOJ has requested that Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.” They justify this by saying currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency, but that new legislation would allow them to apply it “in a consistent manner.” But the Constitution grants citizens habeas corpus, which gives arrestees the right to appear in front of a judge and ask to be released before trial. Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended. Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told Politico the measure was “terrifying,” saying, “Not only would it be a violation of [habeas corpus], but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest.’ So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.” “That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he added. DOJ also asked Congress to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to have defendants appear at a hearing via videoconference instead of in person with the defendant’s consent, although in a draft obtained by Politico, the sections about requiring consent were crossed out. But it’s not just Americans’ rights the DOJ wants to violate. They also asked Congress to pass a law saying that immigrants who test positive for COVID-19 cannot qualify as asylum seekers. As coronavirus spreads through the country, activists are calling on politicians in office to release prisoners and immigrants held in detention centers, both of which can be a hotbed of virus activity with so many people in close quarters and limited or non-existent supplies of soap, sanitizer, and protective equipment. Some states have already begun to do so. But with this, the Trump administration is taking steps to hold more people in prisons for an undetermined amount of time — showing their priority is not saving lives but giving themselves more power.