The Fourth Amendment still applies, doesn't it?

We'll head back to The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And yet, this happened:  

Federal immigration agents bashed open a door and detained a U.S. citizen in his Minnesota home at gunpoint without a warrant, then led him out onto the streets in his underwear in subfreezing conditions, according to his family and videos reviewed by The Associated Press.

ChongLy “Scott” Thao told the AP that his daughter-in-law alerted him on Sunday afternoon that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were banging at the door of his residence in St. Paul. He told her not to open it. Masked agents then forced their way in and pointed guns at the family, yelling at them, Thao recalled.

“I was shaking,” he said. “They didn’t show any warrant; they just broke down the door.”

There's even an ICE memo to back this up:

Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.

The Fourth Amendment still applies, doesn't it?

Every Senator in the US Senate takes an oath that starts with this:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...

In an email response to me, Senator Dave McCormick once wrote: 

I support ICE officers and other federal law enforcement personnel who risk their lives daily to protect our communities and uphold the rule of law. 

I am wondering if he still supports ICE in light of this assault on The Fourth Amendment. 

I suppose I'll have to go to his contact page and ask him.

I suggest you do, too, 

 

 

 

The World's Gone Wrong - Everybody Knows It

Truth - From Lawyer Oyer

Watch this.

The text.

It starts with this:

One of the most contradictory areas of U.S. policy this past year has been drug enforcement. I’ve put together a timeline — which I’ve also shared in video form on my socials — which I think will help to explain why many of us are so confused. Check it out.

January 20, 2025. Donald Trump signs an Executive Order designating drug cartels terrorist organizations, and declaring that “it is the policy of the United States to ensure the total elimination of [their] presence in the United States.”

Then goes through lots of contradictory stuff and then ends with this:

January 2026. Trump sends troops into Venezuela to capture their president, Nicolas Maduro, and try him in the United States on charges of drug trafficking. The charges against Maduro are almost identical to the ones that Trump pardoned Hernandez for.

So how can we reconcile this totally contradictory timeline? That’s exactly what we should be asking our elected officials. It’s not our job to make it make sense—it’s theirs. My focus in 2026 will be seeking accountability from those entrusted to run our country. I invite you to join me. You can be part of my accountability circle by subscribing to my channels, sharing this information, asking questions, and demanding answers. It’s what we deserve from our elected leaders.

Pass it on. 

 

 

 

 

 

If I Could Get A Follow-up Over To Senator McCormick

Remember this?

That was my blog post regarding Senator Dave McCormick's response to this blog post. 

In that first blog post, I wrote about how the DOJ's Civil Rights Division would not play a role in the investigation into the killing of Renee Good.

At the end of it I asked if the senator was OK with the Civil Rights Division being part of that investigation.

As part of his answer, McCormick wrote:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is currently conducting an independent investigation to determine the full facts and circumstances surrounding this loss of life. 

And this weekend, we learned that's not necessarily the case.

From The Washington Post: 

In the immediate aftermath of the death of Renée Good in Minneapolis, FBI agents launched a civil rights investigation into the actions of the immigration officer who shot her, according to three people familiar with the investigation.

An agent in Minnesota conducted an initial review of the shooting and determined that sufficient grounds existed to open a civil rights probe into the actions of Jonathan Ross, the officer who shot Good, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The existence of the civil rights investigation stands in sharp contrast to public statements made by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who said on “Fox News Sunday” that the shooting of Good does not warrant a federal investigation.

Deputy AG Blanche said the shooting does not warrant a federal investigation. 

The Guardian has more:

“Is the FBI conducting an investigation into that agent, into the shooting?” Blanche was asked, in response to criticism from Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz.

“Look, what happened that day has been reviewed by millions and millions of Americans because it was recorded on phones,” Blanche said. “The department of justice, our civil rights unit, we don’t just go out and investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself against somebody putting his life in danger. We never do.”

“The department of justice doesn’t just stand up and investigate because some congressman thinks we should, because some governor thinks that we should,” Blanche said. “We investigate when it’s appropriate to investigate and that is not the case here.

“We are not going to bow to pressure from the media, bow to pressure from politicians, and do something that we never do – not under this administration, not under the last administration. So no, we are not investigating.”

There it is again.

So I'll ask again, Senator. Are you OK with this? And if so, why?

 

A Reminder -

 After pointing out (again) that I am not an attorney, let's start right here:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. 

So can they just stop you to to ask you for your papers?

Generally, no.

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)

The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." 

So you unless there's any "reasonable suspicion" that you're doing something criminal, they simply can't just ask you for your papers.

 

 

Pedophile Protector

From Reuters:

Donald Trump raised his middle finger and appeared to direct profanity toward a Michigan auto plant worker who criticized the U.S. president's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein controversy during a visit on Tuesday, video circulating online showed. 

The entertainment site TMZ first published video of the exchange, and the White House did not dispute its authenticity.

You can read the TMZ reporting here.

An interesting dichotomy in all this. From the Detroit Free Press:

When asked about a video clip of the incident, Ford spokesman Dave Tovar emailed a statement saying the company had a great event and is proud of how employees represented Ford. 

"We’ve seen the clip you’re referring to," Tovar said. "One of our core values is respect and we don’t condone anyone saying anything inappropriate like that within our facilities. When that happens, we have a process to deal with it, but we don’t get into specific personnel matters."

On the other hand from USAToday:

"A lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage, and the President gave an appropriate and unambiguous response," Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement to USA TODAY.

So the the guy exercising his First Amendment rights by shouting the truth at Trump gets suspended and the White House responds by saying that he's a lunatic.

Where are the rest of the Epstein files, by the way? 

 

 

 

All of us

There is now video after video after video of ICE snatching people off the streets and out of cars, assaulting them, disappearing them for hours or all together. Many times these are US citizens...even minor US citizens. They're actually going door to door now. No warrants. No cause. 

Report after report of detainees being denied medical care and worse still, over 30 people died in ICE custody last year -- the most in over two decades. It should be noted that no ICE agents have died despite how many times we are told they are in terrible danger.

And now of course, a 37 year old mother of three, Renee Good, shot in the head three times and killed by ICE in broad daylight. The shooter fleeing the scene with his gun and any bodily evidence. There are now resignations from the DOJ's Civil Rights Division and federal prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office based in Minneapolis over the way the shooting is being handled or should we say mishandled. The FBI has refused to cooperate in any way with local and State officials.

The President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Homeland Security all labeling Good as a domestic terrorist and her killer innocent minutes after the shooting. The Secretary of Homeland Security doing so behind a podium labeled with an actual Nazi/fascist slogan.

And despite the bot comments in every news story on the subject claiming that all she had to do was comply (the way they have any time any Black person has been wrongly hurt by police), the majority of the American public does not agree. Poll after poll shows that the majority believe the shooter was in the wrong, the majority believe that ICE is acting unlawfully, and 47% want ICE abolished -- an opinion that would have been considered wildly radical mere months ago.

What is happening in Minneapolis is insanity. It is the government declaring war on the city and everyone in it including US citizens. 

Anything that you can do at this moment, whether protesting, or contacting your elected officials, or writing letters to the editor, or speaking to your friends and family about this.-- literally anything -- needs to be done and needs to be done right now. We are all of us at war.

Senator McCormick Responds

Today is January 14.

On January 12, I posted this and sent the link to Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick's office.

Yesterday, January 13, I got an email response.

It's notable for what it says and what it doesn't say.

After thanking me for "sharing" my thoughts on the "recent fatal shooting in Minneapolis" the Senator writes:

I support ICE officers and other federal law enforcement personnel who risk their lives daily to protect our communities and uphold the rule of law. The tragic events in Minnesota are deeply concerning and warrant a full and transparent investigation to ensure the facts are clearly established and public confidence is maintained. 

Senator McCormick leaves out the part that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, the part of the DOJ that usually takes the lead in such high profile investigations, will not be participating in this investigation - as per the orders of the Trump DOJ.

In his next paragraph, there's this sentence:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is currently conducting an independent investigation to determine the full facts and circumstances surrounding this loss of life. 

He leaves out how senior Justice Department officials overruled the decision to have the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension - a state agency that reviews police shootings - cooperate in the investigation.

And take a look at the other sentence in that paragraph:

On January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good was fatally shot during a federal immigration enforcement operation in south Minneapolis.  

Note the passive voice there. How "Renee Nicole Good was fatally shot..." and how there's no mention of who fatally shot Renee Good (not even with the necessary "alleged").

Then there's the next paragraph:

I also believe that we must all work to lower the temperature of our public discourse. While strong disagreements are a part of our democratic system and should be debated vigorously, inflammatory rhetoric and violent protests, led by paid activists, have put law enforcement officers and others at risk. The statistics are troubling: assaults on ICE officers have increased by 1,347 percent, and reported death threats have risen by more than 8,000 percent compared to this time last year. Dehumanizing rhetoric distorts reality and creates a dangerous climate where violence becomes the inevitable next step.  

Senator McCormick leaves out how, even before the investigation started, Donald Trump and DHS Secretary Noem were asserting "facts" that were either not supported by evidence or completely untrue (that Good was a domestic terrorist or how she "ran over" the officer).

But sure, let's "lower the temperature of our public discourse."

Then there's the statistics.  They come directly from the aforementioned Secretary Noem's DHS, released January 8 - the day after Renee Good's killing by an ICE officer.

Have these statistics been independently verified? How much trust should we put in them, given the context?

Bottom line, Senator: One of Donald Trump's ICE agents killed Renee Good and it looks an awful lot like Donald Trump's DOJ is doing its weaponized best to cover it up. 

Here's the letter from Sen McCormick:

 

 

And Now...War Crimes

From The New York Times:

The Pentagon used a secret aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane in its first attack on a boat that the Trump administration said was smuggling drugs, killing 11 people last September, according to officials briefed on the matter. The aircraft also carried its munitions inside the fuselage, rather than visibly under its wings, they said.

And:

Retired Maj. Gen. Steven J. Lepper, a former deputy judge advocate general for the United States Air Force, said that if the aircraft had been painted in a way that disguised its military nature and got close enough for the people on the boat to see it — tricking them into failing to realize they should take evasive action or surrender to survive — that was a war crime under armed-conflict standards.

“Shielding your identity is an element of perfidy,” he said. “If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity.”

Perfidy.

Let's look at that.

From the Geneva Convention

Article 37 - Prohibition of perfidy

 

  1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: 

 

  (c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status        

From the DOD Law of War Manual: 

5.22.2 Perfidy - “Kill or Wound”. It is prohibited to use perfidy to kill or wound the enemy. 

And the US Navy/Marines/Coast Guard Handbook on Naval Operations:

Honor prohibits perfidy, the misuse of certain signs, fighting in the enemy’s uniform, feigning nonhostile relations in order to seek a military advantage...

And so on.

Perfidy. Prohibited. War crime. 

 

 

The Cover-up Of Renee Good's Killing

H/t to Liz Oyer.

From CBS:

Prosecutors in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division were told they will not play a role in the ongoing investigation into a fatal shooting of a woman in Minneapolis by a federal immigration officer, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Leadership in the Civil Rights Division, overseen by Harmeet Dhillon, informed staff in the division's criminal section that there would not be an investigation, two sources said. Normally, after a high-profile incident involving a fatal shooting by an officer, attorneys from the criminal section fly out to the scene. Multiple career prosecutors offered to do so in this case, but they were told not to do so, one of the sources added. 

While investigations into the excessive use of force can be pursued solely by a U.S. Attorney's office without direct involvement from the Civil Rights Division, it is customary for the division's federal prosecutors to take the lead on high-profile investigations like the one in Minnesota.

From the Civil Rights Division website:

Congress created the Civil Rights Division in 1957 to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status, military status and national origin.

Except, apparently, Renee Good - who was killed by an ICE agent a few days ago. 

From another section of that same website, we learn that the Civil Rights Division, under 18 U.S.C. § 242 is tasked to investigate "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law" specifically:

This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. It is not necessary that the offense be motivated by racial bias or by any other animus.

Defendants act under color of law when they wield power vested by a government entity.  Those prosecuted under the statute typically include police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and prison guards.  However other government actors, such as judges, district attorneys, other public officials, and public school employees can also act under color of law and can be prosecuted under this statute.

This apparently doesn't apply to Renee Good, who was killed by one of Trump's ICE agents a few days ago.

Interesting part of the story, Harmeet Dhillon is in fact an immigrant herself - born in India and grew up in The Bronx and then North Carolina and became a US citizen when she was 12. She's the one who, I suppose, decided against using the Civil Rights Division to investigate an ICE agent who killed a US citizen.

Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick also voted to confirm Dhillon as head of that division. 

Senator McCormick, are you OK with the Civil Rights Division not investigating the killing of Renee Good?

 

 

 

 

Another Reminder (After Trump's ICE Killed A US Citizen)

Remember, I am not a lawyer, just a concerned citizen.

Let's start (as we should always start) with the Constitution.  Specifically the Amendments.

This one:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...

And this one:

No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Note that it says "The right the people" and "No person" and not "The right of the citizens"  and "No citizen." 

That means they apply to everybody. 

8 U.S. Code § 1357 says:  

Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—

(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

(2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States;

Note that it only applies to "any alien" or any "person believed to be an alien" - and only within the limits of asking about his "right to be or remain in the United States."

ICE has no legal authority to interrogate any US citizen and certainly no authority to demand entry into that citizen's house/apartment or make a demand for that citizen to exit their vehicle.  

Trump's ICE agent killed a US Citizen.

 

A Reminder (About DHS After Trump's ICE Killed An American Citizen)

H/T to Huffpost:

The explicit, publicly available policies of the Department of Homeland Security for use of force and deadly force and the 1989 and 1985 Supreme Court cases Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner, support that reality — along with the locally relevant Minnesota State Statute 609.066.

Let's go dig a little deeper the DHS Department Policy Use of Force document, shall we?

It contains this: 

Unless further restricted by DHS Component policy, DHS LEOs are permitted to use force to control subjects in the course of their official duties as authorized by law, and in defense of themselves and others. In doing so, a LEO shall use only the force that is objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him or her at the time force is applied. [Bolding in original]

And this:

DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public, and that minimize the risk of unintended injury or serious property damage. DHS LEOs should also avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.

And this:

As soon as practicable following a use of force and the end of any perceived public safety threat, DHS LEOs shall obtain appropriate medical assistance for any subject who has visible or apparent injuries, complains of being injured, or requests medical attention. This may include rendering first aid if properly trained and equipped to do so, requesting emergency medical services, and/or arranging transportation to an appropriate medical facility.

And this:

A DHS LEO may use deadly force only when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person.

And this:

Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape. [Underline in original]

And this:

DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy. Before using deadly force under these circumstances, the LEO must take into consideration the hazards that may be posed to law enforcement and innocent bystanders by an out-of- control conveyance.

So the shooter should not have put himself in a position where he might have to use deadly force and Trump's ICE crew should have rendered medical care to the woman one of them just shot. They should not have shot at the car if they thought shooting it would stop the woman from fleeing.

Trump's ICE killed an American citizen. 

Orwell Still Matters

The Frame from Orwell

The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Our reality right now.

Trump: 

The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer...

JD Vance: 

“I’m not happy that this woman lost her life,” he said of Renee Nicole Good, 37, who was fatally shot during a confrontation with ICE officers Wednesday. President Donald Trump has said that Good was "resisting" orders and "viciously ran over the ICE Officer" during an immigration-related operation in the city.  

Noem:

Today, in an act of domestic terrorism, an anti-ICE rioter weaponized her vehicle against law enforcement.

None of any of that was, in fact true.

The CBC:

Good turns her front wheels to the right and her vehicle starts to move forward. At that point, the third officer appears to be less a metre in front of the driver's side edge of the SUV's hood.

The officer then pulls his gun and fires what appears to be three shots into the vehicle. Even as he fires the first shot, the front of the vehicle has clearly passed him as it turns right and he is shooting as he stands beside it.

Trump's ICE agents kill an American citizen and then blame her for it. 

In doing so they're telling you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.

 

 

Trump's ICE Kills American Citizen

This was inevitable.  Still is.

From The Guardian:

Federal agents shot and killed a woman during a large-scale immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis on Wednesday. 

Ilhan Omar, the Democratic Minnesota congresswoman, said the victim was “a legal observer” of action by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which had sent a surge of agents into the city in recent days tied in part to allegations of fraud involving Somali residents. 

A witness to the incident, Emily Heller, told local media that the victim was shot in the face multiple times. Heller said she saw a car blocking traffic that appeared to be part of a protest against the ICE operation, and heard an agent telling the driver, a woman, to “get out of here”. 

“She was trying to turn around, and the ICE agent was in front of her car, and he pulled out a gun and put it right in – like his midriff was on her bumper – and he reached across the hood of the car and shot her in the face like three, four times,” Heller told MPR News, a Minneapolis public radio station. 

The woman has been identified as 37-year-old Renee Nicole Macklin Good, a US citizen and mother of three who had recently moved to Minnesota.

More from NPR: 

NPR and MPR have reviewed multiple videos of the shooting taken from different vantage points and posted to social media. The footage shows multiple officers near an SUV stopped in the middle of the road. One officer demands the driver exit the vehicle and grabs the car handle. The SUV reverses, then begins to drive forward, which is when a different officer near the front of the car pulls his weapon and fires into the vehicle. Three gunshots are heard, as the firing officer backs away from the SUV. Moments later, the vehicle crashes.

You can see it here:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by MPR News (@mprnews)

 

She was not blocking the road.  She was trying to drive away.

Trump's ICE killed her and then tried to say she was at fault because this was an act of domestic terrorism.

It was. The ICE shooters are the terrorists. 

President Gaslight Spins A Tall Tale

From The New York Times:

On the fifth anniversary of the pro-Trump mob attack on the Capitol, the Trump administration created a new page on the official White House website that represented the president’s most brazen bid yet to rewrite the history of the Jan. 6 riot with false claims aimed at absolving him of responsibility.

You can find it here. 

Axios has some much needed corrections:

The page, which is headed by sprawling images of House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and members of the select committee that probed Jan. 6, reads that Democrats "staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election."

• Election officials have maintained a lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud.

As does CNN:

The website champions Trump’s controversial claim that then-Vice President Mike Pence “had the opportunity to return disputed electoral slates to state legislatures for review and decertification,” during the joint session of Congress that day, but chose not to “in an act of cowardice and sabotage.”

Pence himself, legal scholars from across the political spectrum, and many of Trump’s aides and advisers, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have said it would be would have been blatantly unconstitutional for the then-vice president to refuse to certify the 2020 election.

Casting Pelosi, then the Democratic House speaker, as a primary villain of January 6, the White House site seized on comments she made in an HBO documentary, where she said, of security at the Capitol: “I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more.”

“They clearly didn’t know, and I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more,” Pelosi said in the clip. 

That remark doesn’t prove Trump’s oft-repeated claim, which he said again in a speech Tuesday, that Pelosi turned down his supposed offer for an advance deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops. Pelosi has always denied having received such an offer, and the president – not the House speaker – is in charge of the DC National Guard.

And now some truth:

The first is the evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit.

The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit. 

Anything else is a lie. 

 

 

Happy Anniversary!

Hey, remember this?

This really happened - 5 years ago today

Just show that to any MAGA who said that "the police let them in."

But there's more to the story.

Namely this: 

A man who crushed D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges with a police shield on Jan. 6 was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in federal prison on Friday.

Patrick McCaughey III, who was dubbed #ThePinman by online sleuths, was present during some of the worst violence inside the lower west tunnel, the spot where presidents emerge during inauguration ceremonies. McCaughey was sentenced by Judge Trevor McFadden, a Donald Trump appointee who previously delivered the only full acquittal for a Jan. 6 defendant to date and has imposed more lenient sentences than other judges in the Capitol riot cases.

On the other hand:

In a speech on the Senate floor, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, denounced President Trump’s decision to pardon January 6th insurrectionists, including those who violently assaulted law enforcement officers. In his remarks, Durbin read from an NPR article, describing in detail the crimes committed by the insurrectionists.

Including:

Durbin spoke about Patrick Edward McCaughey III’s violent assault on police officers on January 6. McCaughey was convicted for using a police riot shield to crush Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges in a metal doorframe to the point of Hodges bleeding and crying for help.

“‘If I were there much longer being assaulted in such a way, I knew that it was very likely I wouldn’t be able to maintain my consciousness,’ Hodges testified. ‘Your actions on January 6 were some of the most egregious crimes that were committed that day,’ federal judge Trevor McFadden told McCaughey before sentencing him to seven years in prison,’” Durbin read. 

Repeating his refrain, Durbin said, “Mr. McCaughey received a ‘full, complete, unconditional’ pardon from Donald Trump on Monday.”

So yea, Happy Anniversary. 

 

 

Remember This?

From the AP (only 34 or so days ago):

Former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández, sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for his role in a drug trafficking operation that moved hundreds of tons of cocaine to the United States, was released from prison following a pardon from President Donald Trump, officials confirmed Tuesday.

Hernández was released Monday from U.S. Penitentiary Hazelton in West Virginia, a spokesperson for the Federal Bureau of Prisons told The Associated Press. The bureau’s online inmate records also reflected his release.

The release of Hernández — a former U.S. ally whose conviction prosecutors said exposed the depth of cartel influence in Honduras — comes just days after the country’s presidential election. Trump defended the decision aboard Air Force One on Sunday, saying Hondurans believed Hernández had been “set up,” even as prosecutors argued he protected drug traffickers who moved hundreds of tons of cocaine through the country.

He was found guilty in a court of law:

Former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez was convicted on drug trafficking charges Friday in a Manhattan federal court.

Hernandez, who served as president of Honduras from 2014 to 2022, had been charged by U.S. authorities with drug trafficking and weapons offenses that linked him to tons of cocaine imported into the United States over the last two decades. Prosecutors say he accepted bribes from El Chapo's Sinaloa cartel and other drug networks to line his own pockets, finance his political campaigns, and commit electoral fraud to win two presidential elections.

In exchange, prosecutors say, he protected drug traffickers, including his own brother, Tony Hernandez, who was convicted of drug trafficking in the U.S. in 2019 and sentenced to life in prison.

He got a Trump pardon.

 

Guess Who Gets A Mention In Jack Smith's Testimony??

Starting on page 150 of the released testimony,  Representative Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-5th) asked special council Jack Smith this:

Can you just outline for us what actions President Trump, if any, took in Pennsylvania, a State that Joe Biden clearly won, in the 2020 Presidential election to overturn its results and gain the electoral votes for himself? 

And as part of the questioning, she asked this:

Well, I think it is one of the reasons that Pennsylvania's fake electors didn't get prosecuted, was because they pushed back and said, "We're not going to sign this unless you include language saying that this will only be used if there are court cases saying that we are the real electors." 

In your investigation, did you find that the people who were conspiring with the President to push this plan were telling electors one thing and then using their certificates in another way? 

Smith answered:

Yes. The electors were told that they would only be used in these circumstances. And as, you know, other ways of overturning the election fell away and as President Trump and his co-conspirators became more desperate, they came up with even more obviously illegal ways to try to stay in power.

And it eventually devolved to let's just say that these are the electors, regardless of whether any court has said so, the governor has said so, the people of the State and most have said so.

And they didn't go back to electors and say, "Hey, we're going to use your -- I know we told you we were only going to use this if you -- if we won a lawsuit." They just went ahead and used it. 

And then finally Rep Scanlon asked:

I mean, there were other efforts in Pennsylvania. We had the very famous Four16
Seasons Landscaping press conference, which is famous to this day. 

But there was also a meeting that Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano hosted in a hotel in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, around Thanksgiving weekend, between the certification in Pennsylvania and the presentation of the electors in D.C. 

So even though it was framed as a hearing, Giuliani attended that event and ended 
up speaking to promote some of these falsehoods about election fraud or missing votes or 
whatever and made it sort of a rally. Donald Trump even called into this event and claimed 
that he had won Pennsylvania by a lot. 

Are you familiar with that event? 

Didja see it? DIDJA SEE DOUG'S NAME?

Anyway, Smith had this to say about that meeting:

Well, I think they were calling them hotel hearings, and it's because they couldn't have hearings actually in the legislature. And so I don't think Pennsylvania was the only State where that happened.

There's obviously nothing illegal about having a political rally or having a meeting of people of one political party. Our case was about knowing the false fraud claims. 

Earlier in that same testimony, Smith had said this about whether the president knew that the election fraud claims were false: 

I also remember in Pennsylvania, the chair of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, a guy by the name of -- I think his name was Tabas -- very shortly after the election -- this is in, I want to say, mid- to early November -- disabused President Trump of the idea that the reason his vote total, his lead was going down, was because of fraud.  

And he explained again that's how -- we all knew that that's how this was going to work with absentee ballots in the State of Pennsylvania, which we had very strong evidence that Trump, in fact, had been briefed upon by his campaign staff. 

And yet they spread those false claims at Doug's hotel hearing in November of 2020.

The hearing on election irregularities in Gettysburg was historic. @PASenateGOP @SenatorArgall pic.twitter.com/DouU5fbkLs

— Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano) November 26, 2020

 Yes, Senator Mastriano. It was historic. But not for the reasons you might wish.

Let's Get Back To Work

From the BBC:

The US Congress has released the transcript of testimony by former Special Counsel Jack Smith, in which he defended his decision to lead two now-defunct criminal investigations into Donald Trump.

The transcript, released on New Year's Eve by the House Judiciary Committee, is 255 pages. It features questions from lawmakers, and Smith's robust defense of the attempts to prosecute Trump for illegally retaining classified documents after leaving office, and his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

And you can find it here. 

Let's see what's in those pages, shall we?

Early (pg 28) we find Smith testifying that:

We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former Congressman who was going to be an elector for President Trump who said that what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and illegal. 

Later, he is asked about this former member of Congress:

To my recollection I think his name was Thomas Marino. He is a former U.S. Attorney and he is a former -- he's a Republican -- a former Congressman. And he had agreed to be an -- this is before the election -- agreed to be an elector for Donald Trump. And when he was presented with this idea of the fake elector scheme, my recollection of his reaction was that this was an attempt to overthrow the government and it was illegal. 

So who is  Thomas Marino?

He endorsed Trump in 2016.

And was co-chair of Trump's campaign in Pennsylvania.

He's also this guy: 

Marino was a member of the U.S. House from 2011 until 2019, when he abruptly resigned two weeks into his term. He has also served as U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In 2017, Trump nominated him to be the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, but he withdrew from consideration after reports that he had crafted a bill that protected pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors and made it harder for the federal government to tackle the opioid crisis. 

That guy. That's the former Trump guy who said the fake elector scheme was an attempt to overthrow the government and that it was illegal.

There's 255 pages to the testimony.  This is not the last blog post about it.