They staffed the Jan. 6 committee. Threats still follow them

posted in: News | 0

Chris Marquette and Michael Macagnone | CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — A deep unease trickled through Jacob Glick’s entire body. He had started a virtual deposition of Jim Watkins, the large, scruffy QAnon conspiracy theorist who runs 8kun, a website filled with hateful, racist content that included calls for violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Glick, then an investigative counsel for the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 attack, made the customary introductions of his colleagues. Watkins jotted down all the names.

“It already felt creepier — and I’ve been in some creepy ones,” Glick said.

Glick was among the staff on the now-disbanded Jan. 6 panel who say their work exposed them to threats, raised doubts about their safety and required additional safety precautions. Their experiences, recounted in interviews, serve as a high-profile example of concerns among Capitol Hill staffers about whether their work could make them a target for political violence.

At one point during the deposition, Watkins told Glick that his website typically got 300,000 to 3 million visits in a day, but it would spike the day of the deposition. Glick asked why and got a chilling response.

“Because they know I’m talking to you,” Watkins said with a grin.

Glick calmly responded, “Got it.” But he said inside he felt “terrified” thinking about what could happen to him and his family as the target of supporters of the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol. He wondered about conspiracy theorists.

“As a gay Jewish lawyer who works for Jamie Raskin, am I all of the sudden going to become this linchpin of QAnon?” Glick said.

Glick said he was overcome with fear for his partner and whether his address was available to the public — and he still thinks about it.

“I had a moment of real panic where I wondered what kind of storyline I was going to be,” he said.

The committee eventually decided to use part of Glick’s exchange with Watkins in one of its public hearings exhibiting that followers of the former president felt Donald Trump wanted them to come to the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The prospect of his face being shown in such a high-profile hearing injected a jolt of terror into Glick, but he said he was committed to telling the full story of what happened.

Members of the select committee and staff were exposed to a unique barrage of threats as they were conducting their work. The chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., had a police officer stationed outside of his home and still travels with security.

“Obviously since Jan. 6 and my tenure on the committee it has continued to escalate,” Thompson said. “There’s a constant beat of threats.”

But that also happened with some staffers, such as Sandeep Prasanna, who also had to have added security precautions implemented.

A militia member who was subpoenaed by the panel, when they found out Prasanna was conducting the deposition, posted several details, including that Prasanna is gay and a person of color. And over at Georgetown University Law Center, where Prasanna taught as an adjunct professor, a university police officer had to be stationed at his classroom because the class schedule was publicly available.

Other members of the panel’s team of investigators, James Sasso and Marcus Childress, had one of their work emails published on Gateway Pundit, a far-right website.

The staffers had been reaching out to lawyers representing Jan. 6 rioters who pleaded guilty, seeking to interview their clients. The website falsely claimed it as evidence the committee was extorting witnesses.

“I walked into work and my inbox was just flooded with all sorts of email messages from random people calling me a Nazi, calling me a Pelosi stooge, socialist, a lot of other things that the far-right would say about who they perceive to be liberals,” Sasso said. “Telling me to go look into Hunter Biden’s laptop. Calling me dumb.”

That was significant enough for Sasso to give the email addresses to someone on the Jan. 6 panel who managed those threats and worked with Capitol Police. Sasso for some time got emails daily from some of those people.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Supreme Court ruling on Trump immunity could alter impeachment

National Politics |


What Florida’s new 6-week abortion ban means for the South, and traveling patients

National Politics |


Cash-strapped election offices have fewer resources after bans on private grants

National Politics |


Trump nostalgia way up, Gaza dragging down Biden in CNN survey

National Politics |


Donald Trump is running against Joe Biden. But he keeps bringing up another Democrat: Jimmy Carter

Sasso said he leaned on the support of his colleagues, particularly the close-knit group of investigators. They supported him through the hate mail, assuring Sasso his wife would be fine and that most people making threats wouldn’t act and were sitting in a basement somewhere.

That didn’t mean Sasso wasn’t highly attuned to his surroundings when he left the office for home with a sense of anxiety about who might be lurking. He said he “did have those moments of terror and being careful when I went home, making sure no one was really following me.”

“The thought crosses your mind. What if this is the day someone is following me and does something about it?” Sasso said.

Even long after the panel disbanded, Glick still has moments he has to grapple with in the wake of hate directed at him from his work.

Watkins posted personal information he said was tied to Glick, who still struggles with the fact that he is a “bogeyman for one of the scariest men on the internet.”

Sasso’s experience has him questioning what long-term impact such a threat environment will have on the country’s democracy.

“How well can a democracy function if people are afraid to serve in office?” Sasso asked. “Who is going to want to do this thankless job if there’s a ton of heavily armed people willing to come after their families?”

This is part of an occasional series that touches on the safety of congressional staffers and threats to congressional offices.

The post They staffed the Jan. 6 committee. Threats still follow them appeared first on Roll Call.

©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Supreme Court ruling on Trump immunity could alter impeachment

posted in: Adventure | 0

Michael Macagnone | CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — How the Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity in former President Donald Trump’s effort to jettison his federal charges could have some collateral damage: Congress’ impeachment power.

At oral arguments in the case Thursday, Trump attorney D. John Sauer told the justices that the nation’s founders decided impeachment was the check on a president’s behavior in office — and not criminal prosecution.

But several justices and outside experts said Sauer’s arguments, taken together, laid out a diminished version of impeachment power, which normally allows Congress to remove a federal officer for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

That rarely invoked power, used about two dozen times in the nation’s history, should instead have special rules for presidents, Sauer said.

Sauer told the justices that presidents could only face criminal charges once they are impeached and convicted in the Senate. At the same time, he said such a prosecution could only happen under criminal statutes that make a “clear statement” to explicitly include the president.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that argument “would bar the Senate from impeaching him for high crimes or a misdemeanor, because that means that he’s not subject to the law at all.”

“That’s a tautology you can’t escape,” Sotomayor said.

Michael Dreeben, arguing on behalf of Special Counsel John L. “Jack” Smith, told the justices that the argument could prevent criminal prosecution of a former president just because of timing.

If a president committed a crime near the end of their term, Congress may not be able to “crank up the machinery” in time to impeach, Dreeben said, and it’s an open question about whether presidents can be impeached after they have left office.

Gregg Nunziata, the executive director for the Society for the Rule of Law, said Trump’s lawyers construed both the impeachment clause and federal criminal law in a circular fashion that eviscerates both.

Trump’s arguments would have the effect of making the president nearly entirely above the law, said Nunziata, a former staffer for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

“It’s a multitude of arguments that if you can lay them all out next to each other, it’s really a structure for nearly complete unaccountability,” Nunziata said.

Trump’s view

Sauer argued that the founders preferred a president act without fear of prosecution rather than one who faced it constantly, in part citing a memorandum from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in the 1970s.

“Keep in mind that the criminal prosecution of a president prior to impeachment contradicts, in our view, the plain language of the Constitution but also hundreds of years of history and what DOJ admits is the Framers’ intent,” Sauer said.

In response to a question from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Sauer said that former presidents might not even face charges if they were impeached and removed from office for ordering an unsuccessful military coup.

“There would have to be a statute that made a clear statement that Congress purported to regulate the president’s conduct,” Sauer said.

Barrett also asked Sauer what would happen if a president managed to hide their crime until they left office, so there was no opportunity for impeachment. Sauer responded the “framers assumed that risk” rather than take the chance a president would face prosecution.

Dreeben highlighted to the justices that impeachment is an unwieldy tool to address presidential misconduct. “Those are political remedies that are extremely difficult to achieve,” he said.

Past impeachment

The former president’s attorneys made different claims during the 2021 impeachment trial of Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

In response to a question from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Trump’s then-attorney Bruce Castor said the Constitution “makes very clear that a former president is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts that he commits.”

Cornyn later issued a statement citing that answer as part of his reasoning for voting to acquit Trump. Others did as well, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who mentioned it in his speech after the impeachment trial ended.

“We have a criminal justice system in this country,” McConnell said at the time. “We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”

McConnell and other Republicans also said they based their votes on procedural grounds — that the Senate did not have jurisdiction to convict a president who was no longer in office — and not as a judgment of Trump’s behavior.

But at the arguments last week, Sauer argued that Trump’s acquittal at the 2021 Senate impeachment trial should prevent him from facing criminal charges.

Trump last officially made that argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where it was rejected along with his other claims of immunity when a unanimous panel ruled against him in February.

It resurfaced as Sauer argued that the Constitution has enough checks in place to allow presidents some form of criminal immunity, and several conservative members of the court raised that in their questions to Sauer and Dreeben.

Historical context

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during the oral arguments pointed to a brief filed by legal scholars on impeachment, saying Sauer’s conception ran afoul of history.

That brief, filed by the Constitutional Accountability Center on behalf of a group of law professors, argued that the impeachment clause said nothing about making impeachment mandatory for later prosecution, and has not worked that way for the other impeachments in the country’s history.

“The Clause says nothing about the prosecution of an officer who was acquitted after an impeachment proceeding and instead merely confirms that an officer who was convicted via impeachment may face subsequent prosecution,” the brief said.

Related Articles

National Politics |


What Florida’s new 6-week abortion ban means for the South, and traveling patients

National Politics |


Cash-strapped election offices have fewer resources after bans on private grants

National Politics |


Trump nostalgia way up, Gaza dragging down Biden in CNN survey

National Politics |


Donald Trump is running against Joe Biden. But he keeps bringing up another Democrat: Jimmy Carter

National Politics |


Analysis: What to watch during what could be Biden’s final White House correspondents’ dinner

Stephen M. Griffin, a law professor at Tulane University Law School, said some justices seemed to be looking at the impeachment and prosecution argument backwards.

“The impeachment clause expressly contemplates answerability. It says there can be prosecution after the President leaves office. It specifically says that, so I just can’t follow their argument that impeachment is required first,” Griffin said. “That whole line of argument is ridiculous.”

Nunziata said the Supreme Court risked siding with someone who makes “legal arguments that are designed to get him out of whatever jam he immediately faces,” and not take care of the Constitution or the institution.

He said impeachment alone would “not really be a meaningful check” on a potentially lawbreaking president. The current political landscape makes impeachment nearly impossible, and it would only get more difficult.

“There were, I thought, a few justices who gave too much credence to the idea that impeachment is a meaningful check, at least as impeachment is currently practiced and certainly how it’s construed by the president’s counsel,” Nunziata said.

©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

MNUFC forward Tani Oluwaseyi on Canadian national team’s radar

posted in: News | 0

Tani Oluwaseyi’s hot start has come with perks.

With a team-high four goals in only 290 minutes this season, the Minnesota United striker has been the subject of national articles and mentioned in conversations for the Canadian men’s national team.

Oluwaseyi had one goal and two assists in mid-March when Loons goalkeeper Dayne St. Clair joined the Canadian team for the Concacaf Nations League. That’s when interim head coach Mauro Biello inquired about Oluwaseyi.

“(Biello) asked me slightly about it, just early-on conversations,” St. Clair said. “Obviously, he’s just the interim. Who knows what is going to be going on with that? I think if (Oluwaseyi) keeps performing like that, I think he’s definitely catching the eyes of those around.”

Oluwaseyi, who was born in Nigeria and moved to Ontario in 2010, said it’s flattering to be talked about in that context.

“It means you are doing something right,” he said. “I always welcome my name in conversations like that. Again, I don’t want to get too ahead of myself. I think whatever is meant to be will be. I just leave that in God’s hands. Whatever his purpose for me will kind of come true. I can only do my part on this side, just keep performing with the team.”

Oluwaseyi, who also has a team-high 2.9 expected goals this season, is enjoying the ride but said any talk about him being a potential MLS all-star is premature.

“Way too early,” he said. “I think right now I’m just taking it game-by-game, whatever comes. There are going to be games I don’t score, but as long as I can help the team out in other ways, I will do that, too.”

It would be quite a jump for Oluwaseyi, 23, to join Canada’s senior team for the Copa America tournament in June. Another possible option would have been the Under-23 team, but the Canadians failed to qualify for the Summer Olympics in Paris.

Dotson sidelined

Midfielder Hassani Dotson missed his first game of the season Saturday and is unlikely to return in the short term.

“It’s a bit of an ambiguous injury,” head coach Eric Ramsay said Tuesday. “It could be anywhere between a couple weeks and slightly longer. We are still trying to get to the bottom of it. He’s having ups and downs. (It’s) day to day on how he feels.”

Dotson has started seven games in central midfield for the Loons this season, with 629 total MLS minutes played in eight matches.

Briefly

Kervin Arriaga’s wife is due give birth to the couple’s first child Tuesday, and the Honduran midfielder/center back was granted personal time away from the team in Blaine this week. “Fingers crossed, if it’s sort of early on in the week, then that would make life easier for the rest of the group,” Ramsay said.

— MNUFC2 lost 4-1 to Sporting Kansas City II on Sunday. Center back Victor Eriksson had another rough outing, giving up a second-minute foul that led to a free-kick goal. The new Swedish player was booked with a yellow card later in the first half and had approximately a half-dozen total fouls in the match. Meanwhile, Loons’ Under-17 goalkeeper Kai Zeruhn made his professional debut in the defeat. He had five saves.

Related Articles

Minnesota United FC |


For cute! Young son of coach Eric Ramsay joins MNUFC tradition of scoring post-game goals

Republican states challenge new Title IX rules protecting LGBTQ+ students

posted in: Politics | 0

By COLLIN BINKLEY (AP Education Writer)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican states are filing a barrage of legal challenges against the Biden administration’s new expanded campus sexual assault rules, saying they overstep the president’s authority and undermine the Title IX anti-discrimination law.

At least three federal lawsuits were filed on Monday seeking to have the new rules overturned. Cases were filed in Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, with backing from a combined nine Republican-led states. Tennessee and West Virginia also promised a “multi-state response” on Tuesday.

The lawsuits are the first to challenge Biden’s new Title IX rules, which expand protections to LGBTQ+ students and add new safeguards for victims of sexual assault. The policy was finalized in April and takes effect in August.

The Education Department did not immediately respond to the lawsuits.

Central to the dispute is a provision expanding Title IX to LGBTQ+ students. The 1972 law forbids discrimination based on sex in education. Under the new rules, Title IX will also protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Texas’ lawsuit called it a federal overreach that attempts to bring “radical social change” to the nation’s schools. Attorney General Ken Paxton argued the 1972 law was meant to forbid discrimination based on “biological sex” only.

“This Final Rule tells States and other regulated parties that they must ignore biological sex or face enforcement actions and the loss of federal education funding,” the suit said.

The states involved argue that the updated rules clash with their own laws, including those restricting which bathrooms and locker rooms transgender students can use, banning them from using facilities that align with their new gender identity.

A lawsuit filed in Alabama says the expansion conflicts with state laws around “harassment, bathrooms, sports, parental rights, and more,” calling it a violation of “sovereign authority.” Florida, Georgia and South Carolina also backed the suit.

The Biden administration’s new rules broadly protect against discrimination based on sex, but they don’t offer guidance around transgender athletes. The Education Department has promised a separate rule on that issue later.

Yet in their suits, Republican states argue that the latest update could be interpreted to apply to athletics.

A suit filed in Louisiana said the policy “cannot help but sound the death knell for female sports.” Joining that suit were Mississippi, Montana and Idaho.

As legal basis for the new rules, the Education Department cited a 2020 Supreme Court case protecting gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment.

The lawsuits challenge that justification, saying the Supreme Court decision focused on employment law, not Title IX. The decision “involved an unrelated statute that was enacted nearly a decade earlier, pursuant to a different constitutional power,” with no mention of “sex segregated bathrooms, locker rooms and dress codes,” the Texas suit said.

Among other things, the suits also take exception with the new policy changes dictating how schools and colleges must handle complaints of sexual assault.

States say the new rules erode the due process rights of accused students and turn campus disciplinary boards into “kangaroo courts.” They ask courts to immediately halt the rules and overturn them.

The Biden administration’s new rules were proposed nearly two years ago, with a public comment period that drew 240,000 responses, a record for the Education Department.

The policy rolls back many of the changes implemented during the Trump administration, which added more protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.

__

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas are at AP.org.