Archive by Author

Republicans pledge investigation into Jan. 6 investigation

House Republicans announced their intent to conduct their own investigation into the Jan. 6 committee should they overtake leadership of the chamber.

The minority on the House Committee on Administration sent a letter asking the select committee investigating the attack to preserve all its records, a preamble to obtaining those documents in what would become an investigation into an investigation.

“When Republicans once again hold the gavel and I am Chairman of the House Administration Committee, one of our first priorities is going to be launching a full investigation into Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Select Committee’s circus,” Ranking Member Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) wrote in a letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the Jan. 6 committee.

A spokesman for the panel declined to comment.

The letter comes just hours before the Jan. 6 committee is set to have its first public hearing in prime time on Thursday.

Even as the committee prepares to share with the world what it’s learned in months of close-door interviews, it’s been largely proprietary over the materials it’s gathered, rejecting a request from the Department of Justice to share its depositions.

While Davis’s letter cites “on-going questions concerning the Select Committee’s compliance with federal law and House Rules,” courts have largely rebuffed those arguments, siding with the committee in litigation seeking to block its ability to access information.

The GOP elsewhere on Thursday sought to show an eagerness into investigating the riots on Jan. 6, despite boycotting the committee after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected several picks to serve on the committee. 

“We’d like to get to the bottom of why this Capitol was so ill-prepared,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters in a briefing Thursday, pointing to a letter from Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), one of his initial picks to serve on the Jan. 6 panel.

The letter from Banks to Pelosi includes a familiar Republican focus on the security failings leading up to the attack, but also seeks to determine whether the speaker played any role in limiting assistance for lawmakers that day.

Pelosi has dismissed the idea, saying she has no control over security measures taken for the Capitol.

Source: TEST FEED1

McCarthy wants to tap McConnell about Jan. 6 security failures

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Thursday said that GOP members conducting a counter-investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack will seek information on the Capitol’s security posture that day from one of their own – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

The inquiry comes in addition to information Republicans are already seeking from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif).

Pelosi and McConnell, who was Senate Majority Leader on Jan. 6, each had authority over the House and Senate sergeant-at-arms, respectively – two members of the three-person Capitol Police Board, the governing authority over the police force that can approve National Guard assistance.

House Republicans have so far largely blamed Pelosi for the security failures of that day but have yet to tap into any role McConnell had.

That changed Thursday when McCarthy was asked directly whether Republicans will ask similar questions of McConnell that they have of Pelosi.

“Yes,” McCarthy responded.

“We’d like to get to the bottom of why this Capitol was so ill-prepared. There’s reports that – was offered National Guard as early as January 2. We do not know why they weren’t here,” McCarthy said. “We’d like to know the bottom of why they weren’t here.”

Earlier in the press conference, which was aimed at counter-programming Thursday night’s Jan. 6 committee primetime hearing, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) ran through a list of questions that Republicans have about the Capitol attack and want the Jan. 6 committee to answer.

Those included questions about whether Pelosi communicated with the House sergeant-at-arms on Jan. 6 and the days leading up to the riot, and whether Pelosi was involved in the decision to delay National Guard assistance on Jan. 6.  

McCarthy had originally selected Banks to be ranking member on the select committee , before Pelosi blocked his appointment. Banks is now leading a counter-investigation, at the direction of McCarthy, into the Capitol security posture and plans to release a report.

McCarthy did not provide an exact timeline for when that report is expected to be released, but said it will come out “soon.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Elon Musk shoots down suggestion he wants to buy One America News

Tesla CEO Elon Musk shot down a claim from the CEO of One America News that he is interested in buying the far-right cable channel, a favorite of supporters of former President Trump.

“We just received a call from somebody very close to @elonmusk telling us that he would like to talk to us about purchasing @OANN,” Robert Herring, the network’s CEO said in a tweet on Thursday.

“Only Twitter,” Musk replied minutes later.

Musk has earned headlines in recent weeks over a deal struck with Twitter to purchase the social media platform. The billionaire has often been critical of the company’s moderation policies, which he has said frequently amounts to censorship.

At the time, the deal was heralded by Republicans, who argued that under Musk’s potential leadership, the platform would take a more hands-off approach to content moderation.

However, Musk is currently in a stand off with Twitter about internal data he says the social media company is refusing to turn over to him as the two sides reportedly hammer out terms for a potential $44 billion sale.

In May, Musk said that he would put the deal to buy Twitter on hold unless the company could provide information that backs up claims that bots only make up 5 percent of the platform’s users.

OAN, which has featured programming supportive of Trump’s unsupported claims of a “stolen” election, was sued last year for defamation by a voting systems company based on statements made about the 2020 election. 

Last month, the network was forced to air a retraction acknowledging there had been no widespread voter fraud committed by a pair of 2020 election workers in Georgia as part of a settlement between the workers and the network after they sued over similar claims.

Source: TEST FEED1

More Americans say controlling gun violence should be prioritized over gun rights: survey

More Americans believe it is more important to control gun violence than it is to protect gun rights, according to a poll released on Thursday. 

A new NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll found that 59 percent of respondents said it is more important to control gun violence, compared to 35 percent who believe gun rights should be prioritized. 

Broken down by political party, 92 percent of Democrats, 20 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of independents believe controlling gun violence should be prioritized over gun rights protection — demonstrating the stark partisan divide on the issue.

However, majorities of Democrats (84 percent), Republicans (65 percent) and independents (66 percent) all say that the recent shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, N.Y., make them more likely to vote in the November midterm elections.

Overall, 72 percent of respondents polled said those events make them more likely to vote in the upcoming midterms.

The poll comes against the backdrop of several high-profile shootings in Buffalo, Uvalde and Tulsa, Okla. 

Ten people were killed and three more were injured at a supermarket in Buffalo, with the majority of those killed or wounded being Black. In Uvalde, 19 children and two adults were killed by a gunman in an elementary school. In Tulsa, four people died after a gunman went inside a hospital in an attempt to target his physician.

On Wednesday, a sweeping gun package — which would include a civilian ban on bump stocks and raising the minimum age for those purchasing a semi-automatic weapon — was passed by the House. The fate of it, however, remains unclear, given it requires the approval of at least 10 Senate Republicans.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of senators are also working on gun legislation negotiations.

The NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll was conducted from May 31 to June 6 among 1,063 people with a margin of error of 4.3 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

Prosecutors: R. Kelly should get at least 25 years in prison

NEW YORK (AP) — R. Kelly, the R&B superstar known for his anthem “I Believe I Can Fly,” deserves at least 25 years behind bars for sexually abusing women and girls, prosecutors said in a memo filed Wednesday in advance of his sentencing later this month.

A New York City jury found Kelly guilty of racketeering and multiple other counts last year at a sex-trafficking trial that was seen as a signature moment in the #MeToo movement. Prosecutors alleged that the entourage of managers and aides who helped Kelly meet girls — and keep them obedient — amounted to a criminal enterprise.

Several accusers testified in lurid detail during the trial, alleging that Kelly subjected his victims to perverse and sadistic whims when they were underage.

Kelly used his “fame, money and popularity” to systematically “prey upon children and young women for his own sexual gratification,” prosecutors wrote in the filing.

“He continued his crimes and avoided punishment for them for almost 30 years and must now be held to account,” prosecutors wrote.

Kelly’s lawyers have argued that he deserves only a maximum of about 17 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.

Among multiple sordid allegations, jurors heard testimony about a fraudulent marriage scheme hatched to protect Kelly after he feared he had impregnated R&B phenom Aaliyah in 1994 when she was just 15. Witnesses said they were married in matching jogging suits using a license falsely listing her age as 18; he was 27 at the time.

Aaliyah worked with Kelly, who wrote and produced her 1994 debut album, “Age Ain’t Nothing But A Number.” She died in a plane crash in 2001 at age 22.

The competing defense memo suggested prosecutors’ arguments for a higher sentence overreached by falsely claiming Kelly participated in the bribery of “a public aid officer to produce an identification card” that allowed the sham marriage to go forward.

Kelly’s lawyers also said it was wrong to assert he should get more time because he sexually abused one of his victims — referred to in court as “Jane” — after her parents innocently entrusted him to help her with her musical career.

“The record shows that Jane’s parents directed Jane to lie to the defendant about her age and then encouraged her to seduce him,” the papers say.

Kelly, 55, is set to be sentenced on June 29.

Source: TEST FEED1

Starbucks hails judge's ruling in union case

Starbucks on Thursday praised a federal judge’s decision to not reinstate three former employees of the company who said that they had lost their positions for helping to form a labor union within their restaurant.

In a Phoenix U.S. District Court on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John Tuchi struck down the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) request to reinstate the three former employees, citing there were inconsistencies and a lack of validity in NLRB’s claims.

Former Phoenix-based Starbucks employees Tyler Gillette, Laila Dalton, and Alyssa Sanchez were at the center of the lawsuit.

“For all of those reasons and in sum, there is not sufficient evidence to support the Regional Director’s unfair labor practice charge against Starbucks, thus the Regional Director, the Court finds is not likely to succeed on the merits with regard to these complaints,” Tuchi said in his ruling. “The Court will deny the injunctive relief requested and it will dismiss the petition.” 

In a statement to The Hill on Thursday, a Starbucks spokesperson said the company applauded the court’s decision on the matter.

“The ruling by the judge today is further evidence that any claims of anti-union activity are categorically false,” Starbucks said in a statement to The Hill on Thursday, “We respect our partners right to organize, and at the same time we continue to support our local leaders decisions grounded in our Mission and Value.”

The ruling comes as several Starbucks stores in the U.S. have seen workers form unions in the past few months, with employees citing struggles to make a living wage, work conditions, and deteriorating trust with management as reasons why they formed their labor groups.

In a statement, Worker United (WU), the union that represents Starbucks employees, said that the latest ruling doesn’t affect them at all, adding that they will push forward with their movement. 

“Today’s ruling of the Federal Judge regarding our Phoenix workers does not in any way stop what we’re doing. We will continue to fight for workers rights by organizing and mobilizing on the ground,” a WU spokesperson told The Hill, adding that the organization is proud of the work the Phoenix-based Starbuck employees have done. 

“Personally I am very proud of Laila, Alyssa and Tyler who took on Starbucks and continue to take on Starbucks for its unfair treatment of workers. So while today is a disappointment for us it is by no means the end,” WU added. “This is just the beginning and a continuation of our movement. We have sent a message to Starbucks that we will stand up for our workers.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Mike Lee holds slight lead in Senate reelection bid: poll

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has a slim lead over Evan McMullin (I) in a general election matchup, according to a new Deseret News-Hinckley Institute of Politics poll.

The poll found 41 percent of registered Utah voters would support Lee compared to 37 percent supporting McMullin, just slightly above the poll’s margin of error. Nineteen percent of respondents were undecided.

Utah Democrats took the unusual step in April of backing McMullin, an independent who formerly ran for president, rather than a party hopeful in the heavily Republican state.

McMullin will face off against the Republican nominee following a June 28 GOP primary. Lee faces two Republican challengers, former Utah State Representative Rebecca Edwards and Ally Isom, a former business executive who also served as deputy chief of staff to the state’s former governor.

Lee beat his challengers at the party’s nominating convention with more than 70 percent of the vote. Despite now facing his first contested primary as an incumbent, past polling indicates Lee remains the heavy favorite. 

Among the three GOP candidates, Lee is projected to fare the best in a matchup against McMullin.

The poll found McMullin held an 11-point lead over Isom, while Edwards held a one-point lead over the independent, but more than a third of respondents — 37 percent — said they didn’t know who they would vote for in that matchup.

Dan Jones & Associates conducted the poll on behalf of the two organizations from May 24 to June 4. The group polled 810 registered Utah voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

Will the Supreme Court apply a double standard to abortion and gun rights?

The recent mass shootings in America, and the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, have converged just ahead of a momentous time for the Supreme Court. The court soon will release decisions on the constitutionality of a New York State restriction on carrying guns in public, and a 15-week abortion ban enacted by Mississippi. It is widely expected that the court’s conservative majority will expand gun rights and eliminate abortion rights. Many Americans undoubtedly will oppose those decisions.

For such divergent results to be accepted, and to preserve the court’s legitimacy, Americans must be convinced that the justices are impartially applying consistent rules of law to both issues. And this is where the conservative justices may be courting trouble. It appears they are about to fall into the trap of purporting to apply law but looking like results-driven political actors.

If something like the leaked abortion opinion ultimately becomes the court’s decision, its legal reasons for overturning abortion rights would mandate also overruling gun rights (i.e., the Second Amendment rights it recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller). This would not mean Americans could not have guns. Like abortion if Roe is overturned, states would decide these matters (as they did prior to Roe and Heller), rather than having rigid national rules foisted on them by five unelected justices.

Since the conservative justices favor a historic approach to interpreting the Constitution (as opposed to the more “living” approach their liberal colleagues favor), they likely will say Roe lacks a strong basis in that document’s plain text, original understandings and broader objectives. Indeed, the leaked draft relies heavily on such reasoning. But assessed honestly, the historic case for an individual right to have guns is equally deficient in these aspects.

Start with the Constitution’s text and original understanding regarding abortion. At best, the conservatives may say, that charter provides some form of protection for “liberty” (the government shall not “deprive a person … of liberty… without due process of law”) but not a specific right to abortion. Moreover, they will insist, specific liberty rights must be “deeply rooted” in American history and traditions for judges to legitimately recognize them as formal constitutional rights. And here they still stress that in the course of American history, certain abortion practices were tolerated but fairly early on became the target of state prohibitions.

Yet with respect to a personal gun right, the Constitution’s text and historical understandings are similarly lacking. The Second Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” yet the text preceding those words ties that right to service in a state militia (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep…”). The reason for that was well understood when the amendment was adopted. Opponents to adopting the Constitution wanted greater assurances that if they authorized the creation of a federal military as part of that charter, it would not be used to disarm the states’ traditional fighting forces (i.e., their official militias staffed by part-time citizen soldiers who were expected to supply their own guns for that service).

So, how did Heller derive an individual self-defense right out of this text and understanding, particularly when the court itself long had tied that amendment to militia service prior to Heller?

In a curious twist of logic, Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the Heller decision, acknowledged the militia purpose of the Second Amendment but added that early Americans also “undoubtedly” understood it to encompass a personal gun right grounded in ancient English law.  The problem with this reasoning, however, was its weak historical underpinnings. As Justice Steven Breyer pointed out in a later case, some eight out of nine professional historians of old English law argued that Heller was simply wrong on this point — that the English right also was all about service in an official militia.

And there is the rub: If the current conservative majority is principled and honest about applying constitutional text and understandings to both abortion and gun rights, it should conclude that the bases for both are, at best, highly contestable. If Roe should be overturned, then so should Heller. 

With regard to the Founders’ broader constitutional objectives, in the abortion case the conservatives also may rely on “federalism” concerns — the principle that powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution were meant to remain with the states. Since abortion is not addressed by that charter, the people of each state should have the right to determine the proper balancing of interests between a woman’s reproductive freedoms and protecting fetal life based on their own communal values and beliefs — as was the case before 1973.

Improperly arrogating matters to the federal level, conservative justices have said, robs people of this right. They also have argued that depriving people of their say on controversial topics leads to profound polarization.

But if such concerns about local determination are strong in the abortion context, they are even stronger regarding gun rights. Gun practices and needs vary widely in America and involve a complex balancing of interests. Do the personal safety or recreational benefits of gun possession outweigh its obvious costs in terms of the potential for violence and accidents? It seems clear that county supervisors in a heavily rural area would approach that question much differently than officials of a big city that’s drowning in gun violence. Do we really want a few judges imposing a one-size-fits-all solution to these issues?

In overturning abortion rights, the new majority may further argue that the Founders separated power in the Constitution in part to ensure that judges did not act improperly as lawmakers, deciding important issues of public policy. Judges institutionally lack legitimacy and competence to make difficult decisions about when life begins, or when to respect the medical needs and choices of women.

Again, concerns about judges staying in their own lane are equally as strong in the gun context.  Who is better equipped to make hard choices about whether gun regulation harms people more than it protects them? Appointed judges, who may have little or no experience with guns, or the elected representatives of the people in a given locality? The answer seems obvious.

And to the extent that the court’s abortion ruling supplements historical arguments with an outright balancing of interests by the justices themselves — as Justice Samuel Alito appeared to do in the leaked draft by arguing that the Roe court was wrong in recognizing an abortion right because of the strong countervailing interests in protecting fetal life — what about the similar countervailing interests that counsel against recognizing a gun right (i.e., protecting life by making gun possession and violence less likely)?

Conservative judges proudly don the mantle of “originalism” because it supposedly keeps judges from becoming “activists” and decreeing the existence of constitutional rights based on their personal beliefs. Let’s hope the conservatives’ adherence to this philosophy is not limited to their disfavored rights.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently urged people to judge the court by asking, “Is its reasoning that of a political or legislative body … or is its reasoning judicial?” Reasoning applied inconsistently and hypocritically to abortion versus gun rights would certainly smack of the work of politicians, rather than judges. And that’s the last thing the court needs right now.

Barry P. McDonald teaches constitutional law, First Amendment law, and copyright law at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law. He is a recognized expert on constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Source: TEST FEED1