Tag: Jan

Appeals court ruling puts hundreds of Jan. 6 felony cases in limbo

[ad_1]

But Judge Florence Pan, who wrote the majority opinion, said it was the wrong time to decide that broad question because the three defendants whose cases were before the court were all also charged with assaulting police. There’s little question that those who assaulted police that day acted with “corrupt intent.” But in Jan. 6 obstruction cases that don’t involve assault, determining “corrupt intent” is much more complicated, she said.
“It is more prudent to delay addressing the meaning of ‘corrupt’ intent until that issue is properly presented to the court,” Pan wrote, pointing to the pending appeal of Jan. 6 defendant Thomas Robertson — a former Virginia police officer who was convicted of obstruction by a jury — as one potential vehicle. Pan was appointed to the appeals court by Joe Biden.
The stakes of the lingering issue are enormous. More than 300 Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with obstructing Congress’ proceedings — many of whom are not accused of assaulting police. The obstruction charge carries a 20-year maximum sentence and is a cudgel the Justice Department has used at times in plea negotiations with rioters who surged into the Capitol’s most sensitive spaces.
The Jan. 6 select committee urged the Justice Department to charge Donald Trump with this precise crime as well, after a federal judge in California agreed that Trump “likely” committed obstruction. Any ruling narrowing the definition of “corrupt intent” could take such a charge off the table.
Pan noted that prior cases have defined corrupt intent in multiple ways. The Supreme Court has previously described acting “corruptly” as doing something “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil.” The late Justice Antonin Scalia defined “corrupt” acts as those done “to bring about either an unlawful result or a lawful result by some unlawful method, with a hope or expectation of either financial gain or other benefit to oneself or a benefit of another person.”
Pan’s 40-page opinion may not be the last word. The second judge who joined her ruling — Justin Walker, a Trump appointee — issued a concurring opinion that adopted a narrow interpretation of the definition of “corrupt intent.”
“A defendant must intend to obtain a benefit that he knows is unlawful,” Walker concluded.
Complicating the matter further: Walker contended that his interpretation may be the binding opinion of the appeals court under precedent that requires the most “narrow” interpretation to prevail when a panel is splintered. (In a footnote, Pan said she disagreed.)

Defense attorneys for Jan. 6 defendants are already poring over Walker’s analysis. Nicholas Smith, who argued the case on behalf of three Jan. 6 defendants before the appeals court panel in December, said that if Walker’s contention is correct, his narrow definition of “corrupt intent” is already the binding opinion of the court.
If the Justice Department concludes that the ruling is too problematic for the vast array of Jan. 6 cases, prosecutors could ask the full, 10-member bench of the appeals court to weigh in.
The immediate effect of the appeals court’s 2-1 vote is the reversal of a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, who determined that obstruction charges were being improperly applied to Jan. 6 defendants. But Nichols’ ruling did not dissect the “corrupt intent” aspect of the law. Rather, he contended that the obstruction charges required evidence that the defendants interfered with physical documents — computer files, papers or other tangible evidence.
More than a dozen other district court judges had rejected that premise, contending that the meaning of the obstruction law — passed in the aftermath of the Enron scandal — is clear: Obstruction includes a wide range of efforts to frustrate the official work of government, not just tampering with documents.
The appeals court panel largely agreed with that interpretation, ruling that the vast majority of the district court judges got it right. The judges also agreed that the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress — which was disrupted by rioters — should be classified as an “official proceeding” of Congress, a point that some Jan. 6 defendants had challenged. But that’s where the agreement ended.
In a dissent, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, faulted the two other judges for leaving all sorts of advocates and protesters exposed to the potential of severe criminal penalties for routine protests or even just some forms of lobbying.
“A lobbyist who successfully persuades a member of Congress to change a vote has likewise influenced an official proceeding. So has a peaceful protestor who, attempting to sway votes, holds up a sign in the Senate gallery before being escorted away,” he wrote. “Of course, this case involves rioting as opposed to peaceful advocacy, lobbying, or protest. But the construction of [corrupt intent] adopted by my colleagues will sweep in all of the above.”
Katsas argued that under his colleagues’ approach, the demonstrators who’ve gathered outside the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices over the past months in response to that court’s action wiping out abortion rights could face up to 20 years in prison.
Even Walker’s somewhat narrower interpretation “would continue to supercharge comparatively minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses into 20-year felonies, provided the defendant knows he is acting unlawfully in some small way,” Katsas wrote. “But even that hypothetical protestor would be protected only until the jurist, a neighbor, or the police told the protestor what the law is.”
Walker’s reading of the obstruction law still gives it “improbable breadth,” Katsas wrote.
[ad_2]
#Appeals #court #ruling #puts #hundreds #Jan #felony #cases #limbo
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 7, 2023
Pence will not appeal ruling requiring him to testify to Jan. 6 grand jury

[ad_1]

Trump and Pence had both challenged the subpoena — but on entirely distinct grounds. Trump contended that his conversations with Pence in the weeks preceding the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol should be shielded by investigators because of executive privilege, which is intended to preserve the confidentiality of some presidential communications. Trump has lost a series of sealed executive privilege fights in recent months, failing to convince federal district and appellate judges to support his privilege assertions.
Pence, however, had argued that the subpoena for his testimony was problematic for a different reason: his role as president of the Senate. The Constitution, he argued, makes the vice president a hybrid creature of the executive and legislative branch. Pence’s role on Jan. 6 — to preside over Congress’ counting of electoral votes — fell squarely within his congressional duties, entitling him to the protection of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which protects lawmakers from criminal inquiries that pertain to their official responsibilities.
As a result, Pence’s attorney contended that Pence should be shielded from the special counsel’s subpoena for any testimony related to his Jan. 6 role. Though the precise contours of Boasberg’s ruling remain unknown, a person familiar with the decision indicated that it agreed with aspects of Pence’s argument.
Boasberg found — for the first time in American history — that vice presidents do enjoy some congressional immunity for their role as president of the Senate. Pence allies say Baosberg’s decision was narrower than they preferred — opening Pence up to questions about his legislative duties they had hoped would be shielded — but they have largely treated it as a victory on the principle Pence set out to defend.
“In the Court’s decision, that principle prevailed,” O’Malley said. “The Court’s landmark and historic ruling affirmed for the first time in history that the Speech or Debate Clause extends to the Vice President of the United States.”
Though Pence’s decision means he’s likely to testify, Trump may still opt to appeal Boasberg’s ruling that executive privilege does not block Pence’s testimony.
Pence has long signaled he was willing to testify to the grand jury about topics that weren’t shielded by privilege. Smith is likely to press Pence about Trump’s weeks-long bid to convince him to single-handedly derail the transfer of power by refusing to count Joe Biden’s electoral votes on Jan. 6. Pence’s refusal to do so drew Trump’s fury and caused a mob that had gathered outside the Capitol that day to hunt for the vice president.
[ad_2]
#Pence #appeal #ruling #requiring #testify #Jan #grand #jury
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 6, 2023
Appeals court rejects Trump’s bid to block aides from testifying in Jan. 6 probe

[ad_1]
CNN has reported that the aides covered by Trump’s emergency order may include Meadows, Scavino, Miller and other former top Trump administration advisers like Robert O’Brien, John Ratcliffe and Ken Cuccinelli.
Smith’s investigation of Trump’s effort to seize a second term has intensified in recent months. He has won a series of rulings to compel testimony from top figures in Trump’s orbit, including former Vice President Mike Pence.
The three-judge panel that rejected Trump’s emergency motion consisted of Judges Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins and Gregory Katsas. Millett and Wilkins are both appointees of former President Barack Obama, while Katsas was appointed by Trump. The appeals court’s action denying the motion was recorded in its public docket, although the actual order issued by the court and all other pleadings related to the dispute remain sealed.
Trump could try to take the issue to the Supreme Court, though he has opted against doing so in several other defeats connected to Smith’s Jan. 6 probe.
[ad_2]
#Appeals #court #rejects #Trumps #bid #block #aides #testifying #Jan #probe
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 4, 2023
Opinion | Trump’s Huge Jan. 6 Mistake

[ad_1]

But there was Trump in Waco, Texas, opening his inaugural rally of the 2024 campaign with a recording of the song “Justice for All” that he performed with the J6 Prison Choir, with some scenes of Jan. 6 playing on the jumbotrons.
Among those favorably inclined toward it, the bloody riot at the Capitol has progressed from something to be minimized — and blamed on others, whether antifa or federal informants — to closer to something to be celebrated, almost, if not quite, Stop the Steal’s Bastille Day.
For Trump, a master at appropriating the catch lines and attacks of the other side, reversing the meaning of Jan. 6 would be his most audacious move yet. How long is it before that day, in an echo of the phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy that got him impeached, becomes “the perfect protest?”
This is a huge mistake in every way, most importantly on the merits, but also on the politics.
Yet Trump’s stance isn’t surprising. He still hews to the two premises of the Jan. 6 riot — that, as a general proposition, the 2020 election was stolen and, more particularly, former Vice President Mike Pence could have stopped the counting of the electoral votes if he weren’t so weak. This is why, in a contradiction, Trump blames Pence for an event that he also portrays as not so bad.
Trump has talked about pardoning the rioters, who are “great patriots,” and floated the idea of the government apologizing to many of them.
Now, it is true that the insistence by Democrats and the media on referring to Jan. 6 always and exclusively as “the insurrection” is tiresome and politically motivated. (Insurrection suggests a sustained campaign, whereas this was a one-time spasm of violence more appropriately referred to as a riot.)
The Justice Department has gone out of its way to run up the number of prosecutions to make a political point about the seriousness of the event, and defendants have been denied bail in a highly unusual manner — if we grant bail to mafia hit men, and we do, we should grant it to someone who punched a cop on Jan. 6.

And there is a rank hypocrisy in the treatment of political violence. The same people on the left who were willing to look the other way during the “mostly peaceful” riots after the killing of George Floyd are outraged by Jan. 6. (Of course, hypocrisy is a two-way street: If it’s wrong to burn down a gas station in the name of Black Lives Matter, it’s not any better to storm the Capitol in the name of Stop the Steal.)
All that said, making excuses for or valorizing Jan. 6 is deeply wrong.
First, there’s the matter of principle. Riots are bad and never justified (except in the rare case when they are a precursor of a just and well-founded act of revolution — for example, the American War for Independence). They hurt people and destroy property, while achieving nothing or setting back the cause they were supposed to advance.
Disorder at the heart of the U.S. government, disrupting a long-standing ritual connected to the peaceful transfer of power, is particularly egregious.
Second, justifying or excusing political violence has a deranging influence on the republic. The more reason both sides have to physically fear each other, the easier it is to justify extreme measures in response, in a widening gyre of escalation.
Third, it’s simply terrible politics. If the other side is desperate to portray you as in bed with fanatics and rioters, it’s best not to go out of your way to prove them right. It’s perverse for Republicans that just as the Jan. 6 Committee has been put out of business and is no longer in a position to constantly remind the public of Jan. 6, here comes Donald Trump to remind people of Jan. 6.
It’d be a little like Richard Nixon running for the 1976 Republican presidential nomination, and campaigning with a barbershop quartet made up of the Watergate burglars.
Or Ulysses S. Grant deciding to run for third term while extolling the unappreciated virtues of the organizers of the Whiskey Ring scandal.
What Trump is doing flies in the face of the lessons of the midterms. Jan. 6 lent emotional power to the Democratic argument that democracy was under threat, and Stop the Steal candidates proved radioactive. Trump wants, in effect, to repeat November 2022’s failed political experiment on a larger scale in 2024.
On top of his natural inclinations, Trump may be making a calculation that in a primary race with Ron DeSantis to be the most MAGA Republican candidate, he can’t lose by staking out the most pro-Jan. 6 position. That’s not a crazy bet, but if Trump is going to be beaten it will probably be, in part, on grounds that he carries too much baggage and is an electability risk. By embracing rather than skirting one of his major vulnerabilities, he gives his adversaries more ammunition on both counts.
Jan. 6 is an outrage that shouldn’t become a cause.
[ad_2]
#Opinion #Trumps #Huge #Jan #Mistake
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 30, 2023
Judge says Pence must testify to Jan. 6 grand jury

[ad_1]

Pence has indicated he’s open to answering certain categories of questions related to Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election despite losing the race to Joe Biden. But he has argued that the vice president’s unusual role — both a top member of the executive branch and president of the Senate — entitles him to immunity typically afforded to members of Congress. He has indicated he’s willing to take the fight to the Supreme Court if he doesn’t like the outcome.
CNN and ABC first reported on Boasberg’s decision to require Pence to testify on some aspects of the Jan. 6 probe.
It’s a complex argument with extraordinary ramifications, both for the investigation into potential crimes by Trump in his bid to seize a second term, and for the separation of powers that define the federal government. Pence’s argument has been largely untested in courts, but the Justice Department has, on at least three occasions, argued that vice presidents should enjoy so-called “speech or debate” immunity that largely protects members of Congress from answering in court for their legislative acts.
Pence did not adopt Trump’s separate argument — that his assertion of executive privilege bars Pence’s potential testimony. Multiple courts have rejected claims of executive privilege and attorney-client privilege amid his efforts to prevent witnesses from testifying before Smith’s grand juries. One of those grand juries is probing Trump’s handling of classified records he retained at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving office.
Legal scholars generally agree that Pence has a legitimate case that his role as president of the Senate may warrant immunity from testimony sought by the executive branch. The federal appeals court in Washington is expected to rule imminently on a separate effort by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to cite the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause to prevent Smith from accessing his cell phone data. U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell — who handed the chief’s gavel to Boasberg earlier this month — rejected most of Perry’s claims in a December ruling she recently unsealed.
[ad_2]
#Judge #Pence #testify #Jan #grand #jury
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 28, 2023
Judge sentences Jan. 6 defendant who breached Pelosi’s office to 36 months in prison

[ad_1]
Jackson’s sentence was the close of one of the earliest sagas to emerge after the Jan. 6 attack. Williams was one of the first felony defendants charged, and she was suspected at the time of stealing Nancy Pelosi’s laptop, in part because she told friends that she did.
A jury convicted Williams in December of civil disorder and resisting police but deadlocked on a charge that Williams obstructed Congress and abetted the theft of Pelosi’s laptop. Williams is on tape entering Pelosi’s conference room while other rioters took the laptop, and she encouraged them to steal it, but Williams’ lawyers contended that it was unclear if the other rioters heard her comment.
Jackson spent much of her sentencing colloquy dismantling the defense’s claim that Williams was too young or too small to be responsible for the grave offenses the government charged. The defense team leaned on Williams’ youthful demeanor and the fact that she seemed briefly confused about which building was being stormed — calling it the White House as she approached. But Jackson said any momentary confusion Williams expressed was clarified by her repeated acknowledgment of why she was there.
It was not, Jackson emphasized, “because her dizzy little head was confused about which building in Washington was which.”
Fuentes, she noted, was born the same year as Williams. People can sign up for the military at 18, she added, noting that Williams was old enough on Jan. 6 to have completed a tour of duty. John Lewis was 21 when he became a freedom fighter, Jackson added.
“She was old enough to be one of the police officers she resisted,” Jackson said.
Jackson also took on the defense’s repeated assertions about Williams’ diminutive stature, noting that figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Liz Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had all achieved prominence despite their size.
“Riley June Williams was old enough and tall enough to be held accountable for her actions,” Jackson said.

[ad_2]
#Judge #sentences #Jan #defendant #breached #Pelosis #office #months #prison
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 23, 2023
In Jan, Feb 2023; 4.70 lakh tourists visited J&K; figure highest ever: LG Manoj Sinha

[ad_1]
Srinagar, Mar 19: Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha Sunday said Jammu and Kashmir is witnessing tourism boom as in just the first two months of the year 2023, 4.70 lakh tourists have visited the UT as the administration expects another record number of tourist arrivals in the ensuing year.
Addressing the gathering after inaugurating Asia’s largest Tulip garden, situated in the foothills of Zabarwan mountain range, overlooking Dal Lake in Srinagar, the LG said that tourism is picking up and tourists are visiting in large numbers to J&K. “In just January and February months, 4.70 lakh tourists visited J&K and the figure excludes Mata Vaishno Devi pilgrims,” the LG said as per news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO), adding that the figure is highest ever so far compared to past.
He said that in 2022, 1 Crore and 28 lakh tourists visited J&K and the figure is the highest in the past many decades.
He said that this year 16 tulips are in full bloom in the garden with 68 varieties. The garden is spread over 30 hectares of land. “I am glad to announce that we have a second Tulip garden at Patnitop where 2.5 lakh tulips are in full bloom. Efforts are on to keep both the gardens open throughout the year,” the LG said as per KNO. He thanked the gardeners for their hard work and keeping the garden ready in record time.
He said that EMARR group’s Rs 500 Cr investment in J&K will give confidence to other foreign players to invest in J&K. “I am sure we will see a huge investment in the Healthcare and hospitality sector, tourism, and other sectors,” the LG said.
He said that Prime Minister Narendera Modi changed the “taqdeer and tasveer” of J&K in the past three years—(KNO)
[ad_2]
#Jan #Feb #lakh #tourists #visited #figure #highest #Manoj #Sinha

( With inputs from : roshankashmir.net )

March 19, 2023
In Jan, Feb 2023; 4.70 lakh tourists visited J&K; figure highest ever: LG Manoj Sinha

[ad_1]
Srinagar, Mar 19: Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha Sunday said Jammu and Kashmir is witnessing tourism boom as in just the first two months of the year 2023, 4.70 lakh tourists have visited the UT as the administration expects another record number of tourist arrivals in the ensuing year.
Addressing the gathering after inaugurating Asia’s largest Tulip garden, situated in the foothills of Zabarwan mountain range, overlooking Dal Lake in Srinagar, the LG said that tourism is picking up and tourists are visiting in large numbers to J&K. “In just January and February months, 4.70 lakh tourists visited J&K and the figure excludes Mata Vaishno Devi pilgrims,” the LG said as per news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO), adding that the figure is highest ever so far compared to past.
He said that in 2022, 1 Crore and 28 lakh tourists visited J&K and the figure is the highest in the past many decades.
He said that this year 16 tulips are in full bloom in the garden with 68 varieties. The garden is spread over 30 hectares of land. “I am glad to announce that we have a second Tulip garden at Patnitop where 2.5 lakh tulips are in full bloom. Efforts are on to keep both the gardens open throughout the year,” the LG said as per KNO. He thanked the gardeners for their hard work and keeping the garden ready in record time.
He said that EMARR group’s Rs 500 Cr investment in J&K will give confidence to other foreign players to invest in J&K. “I am sure we will see a huge investment in the Healthcare and hospitality sector, tourism, and other sectors,” the LG said.
He said that Prime Minister Narendera Modi changed the “taqdeer and tasveer” of J&K in the past three years—(KNO)
[ad_2]
#Jan #Feb #lakh #tourists #visited #figure #highest #Manoj #Sinha

( With inputs from : roshankashmir.net )

March 19, 2023
House GOP ignored Capitol Police requests to review public Jan. 6 footage, lawyer says

[ad_1]

The department is typically loath to appear at odds with House leaders in particular, since it relies on the majority party for its budget and are charged with protecting its members.
Last month Republicans started requesting the same footage that the Jan. 6 select committee had access to. Those requests came first from Tim Monahan — who doubles as a top aide to Speaker Kevin McCarthy and as a staff director for the House Administration Committee — and then from Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), the chair of that panel, which has jurisdiction over Capitol security.
Within days, DiBiase indicated, the Capitol Police installed three terminals in a House office building to grant access to the footage. And DiBiase said he also provided four hard drives he had received from the Democratic-led Jan. 6 panel after it completed its work.
“At no time was I nor anyone else from the Capitol Police informed that anyone other than personnel from [the House Administration Committee] would be reviewing the camera footage,” DiBiase indicated.
Later last month, media reports indicated that McCarthy had granted access to the footage to Carlson’s producers. DiBiase said he later learned that “personnel from the Tucker Carlson Show were allowed to view whatever footage they wanted while supervised by staff from [the House Administration Committee] but that no footage had been physically turned over to the show.”
A week later, Monahan requested a list of Capitol Police cameras that were deemed “sensitive” because they include details about evacuation routes or locations such as intelligence committee facilities.
“We worked with the Capitol Police ahead of time to identify any security-sensitive footage and made sure it wasn’t released,” said Mark Bednar, a spokesperson for McCarthy. “In subsequent conversations, the USCP General Counsel confirmed that the department concluded there are no security concerns with what was released.”
A GOP committee aide, asked about the statements in the affidavit, noted that the Republicans asked the Capitol Police for a list of security sensitive cameras “to ensure anything on the list requested by Tucker was approved by USCP, which we did.”

The aide added that Capitol Police “told us they had no concern with what was released,” but didn’t immediately respond to follow up questions about if that comment came before or after the footage aired on Fox, and if it applied to both the clip Capitol Police was able to review and those that they say they weren’t.
DiBiase emphasized that in “numerous conversations” over “several weeks,” he informed Monahan that the Capitol Police wanted “to review every footage clip, whether it was on the Sensitive List or not, if it was going to be made public.” The Jan. 6 select committee had gone through that process with the department “in all cases,” DiBiase said, as had federal prosecutors pursuing cases against hundreds of Capitol riot defendants.
“Of the numerous clips shown during the Tucker Carlson show on March 6 and 7, 2023, I was shown only one clip before it aired, and that clip was from the Sensitive List,” he continued. “Since that clip was substantially similar to a clip used in the Impeachment Trial and was publicly available, I approved the use of the clip. The other approximately 40 clips, which were not from the Sensitive List, were never shown to me nor anyone else from the Capitol Police.”
DiBiase left some key details about his interactions with the House Administration Committee unanswered. For example, he didn’t indicate whether anyone on the panel had agreed to his requests for a preview of the footage.
Notably, DiBiase indicated that the House managers of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial after the Jan. 6 attack, who used about 15 Capitol security camera clips, did not preview them with the department before using them in the February 2021 proceedings. Those clips included “some from the Sensitive List.” The footnote caught the attention of Republicans who pointed to it on Friday, as an example of when Democrats had provided “zero consultation.”
Bednar also pointed to the impeachment trial footage and said House Republicans had taken more steps to protect security sensitive material than impeachment managers did.
Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger said in a statement earlier this month that he has little control over the footage once it’s provided to lawmakers.
Manger himself fiercely criticized Carlson and Fox News’ handling of the footage, saying it minimized the violence and chaos of Jan. 6 and portrayed Capitol Police officers’ actions in a “misleading” and “offensive” light.
DiBiase’s statement came in the case of William Pope, a Jan. 6 defendant who is representing himself and has moved to publicly release a trove of Jan. 6 security footage. Several other Jan. 6 defendants have cited Carlson’s access to the trove of footage in their own pending matters and said they intend to seek access. But, DiBiase noted in the affidavit, while Administration staff had said last week that no footage had been shown to any defendant or defense counsel, the Capitol Police had received additional requests to review the footage.
McCarthy’s decision to release the footage sparked weeks of questions for House Republicans. It’s also just the beginning of GOP lawmakers’ work to relitigate the attack, with the Administration Committee currently reviewing the previous Jan. 6 select committee’s work and promising to investigate Capitol security decisions leading up to the day. Meanwhile, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are planning a trip to visit the individuals jailed in connection with Jan. 6.
McCarthy has defended his decision to give access to the footage to Carlson, who has falsely portrayed the attack as nonviolent. The speaker and House Administration Committee members have pledged to release the footage more widely.
“I think putting it out all to the American public, you can see the truth, see exactly what transpired that day and everybody can have the exact same” access, McCarthy recently told reporters. “My intention is to release it to everyone.”
[ad_2]
#House #GOP #Capitol #Police #requests #review #public #Jan #footage #lawyer
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 17, 2023
Former editor of Jewish newspaper charged for Jan. 6 actions

[ad_1]

In a statement of facts accompanying the case, the FBI special agent who investigated Resnick indicated that an April 8 POLITICO story played a role in the FBI’s identification of Resnick, when a tipster brought it to the bureau’s attention.
At the time, the Jewish Press’ editorial board defended Resnick’s presence at the Capitol, contending that he was there in a professional capacity to cover the events of the day.
“The Jewish Press does not see why Elliot’s personal views on former President Trump should make him any different from the dozens of other journalists covering the events, including many inside the Capitol building during the riots, nor why his presence justifies an article in Politico while the presence of other reporters inside the building does not,” the board wrote.
But videos and images from that day portrayed Resnick as an active participant in the unrest, pushing his way to the doors of the Capitol, waving rioters on and bursting through the rotunda doors despite resistance from police. Prosecutors included images suggesting Resnick aided other rioters’ entry into the building.
In addition, Resnick never printed any articles or accounts of Jan. 6, despite his active presence on social media and perch at the Jewish Press. In the same statement, the board described this as an institutional decision: “The Jewish Press decided not to print any article — by Elliot or anyone else — in our print edition because of the heated atmosphere surrounding the day’s events, especially within New York’s Orthodox Jewish community.”
In the charging documents, the agent on the case noted that she was “aware of and has complied with the U.S. Department of Justice’s News Media Policy,” which prescribes guidance and limits on the way prosecutors investigate and charge members of the press.
Resnick, according to the charging documents, was inside the Capitol for about 50 minutes, based on a review of CCTV footage and other video captured by media and members of the mob.
[ad_2]
#editor #Jewish #newspaper #charged #Jan #actions
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

March 16, 2023