- Judge Says Arkansas Can’t Prosecute Librarians For Carrying ‘Harmful’ Books—After State Joined National Push To Restrict Books Forbes
- Federal judge blocks Arkansas law banning librarians from exposing minors to ‘harmful’ material Fox News
- Judge blocks Arkansas law criminalizing libraries and bookstores for providing ‘harmful’ books to minors CNN
- Arkansas library community members discuss ACT 372 4029tv
- Judge blocks Arkansas law allowing librarians to be criminally charged over ‘harmful’ materials WREG NewsChannel 3
Tag Archives: prosecute
Gilgo Beach killings: Suffolk DA Ray Tierney to prosecute case himself, his office says – Newsday
- Gilgo Beach killings: Suffolk DA Ray Tierney to prosecute case himself, his office says Newsday
- Atlantic City’s ‘Eastbound Strangler’ probe revived as Gilgo suspect Rex Heuermann’s Jersey Shore ties emerge Fox News
- Sex-worker immunity would have helped Gilgo Beach probe Newsday
- Town looking to buy Gilgo Beach suspect Rex Heuermann’s home, which has become a magnet for gawkers New York Post
- Inside ‘Long Island Serial Killer’ Rex Heuermann’s Years of Crime: ‘Predator That Ruined Families’ Yahoo Entertainment
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Fauci lashes out at Elon Musk over COVID claims: ‘Prosecute me for what?’ – Fox Business
- Fauci lashes out at Elon Musk over COVID claims: ‘Prosecute me for what?’ Fox Business
- OpenAI founder talks ChatGPT, Dall-E and what’s next for artificial intelligence at SXSW Austin American-Statesman
- Anthony Fauci Grills Elon Musk’s ‘Craziness’ For Call To Prosecute Him HuffPost
- Using ChatGPT to Rewrite ‘Game of Thrones’? OpenAI Co-Founder Says “That Is What Entertainment Will Look Like” Hollywood Reporter
- Fauci Hits Back at Elon Musk’s Prosecution Call: ‘Off the Deep End’ Newsweek
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Anthony Fauci Grills Elon Musk’s ‘Craziness’ For Call To Prosecute Him – HuffPost
- Anthony Fauci Grills Elon Musk’s ‘Craziness’ For Call To Prosecute Him HuffPost
- OpenAI founder talks ChatGPT, Dall-E and what’s next for artificial intelligence at SXSW Austin American-Statesman
- Fauci lashes out at Elon Musk over COVID claims: ‘Prosecute me for what?’ Fox Business
- Using ChatGPT to Rewrite ‘Game of Thrones’? OpenAI Co-Founder Says “That Is What Entertainment Will Look Like” Hollywood Reporter
- Fauci Hits Back at Elon Musk’s Prosecution Call: ‘Off the Deep End’ Newsweek
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Jan. 6 committee approves criminal referrals targeting Trump, urging DOJ to prosecute
Washington — The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol recommended the Justice Department pursue at least four criminal charges against former President Donald Trump related to his alleged efforts to thwart the transfer of presidential power, a historic yet largely symbolic move that marks the first time a former president has been the subject of a criminal referral by Congress.
During its final public meeting Monday, the panel’s seven Democrats and two Republicans voted unanimously to adopt its final report and urge the Justice Department to prosecute Trump for obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement and incitement, rebellion or insurrection. Trump’s actions could also constitute violations of two other conspiracy statutes depending on potential evidence developed by the Justice Department, the panel said in a summary of the report.
“We propose to the committee advancing referrals where the gravity of the specific offense, the severity of its actual harm, and the centrality of the offender to the overall design of the unlawful scheme to overthrow the election, compel us to speak,” Rep. Jamie Raskin said at Monday’s meeting. “Ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass.”
The panel’s nine members also voted to issue referrals for several of Trump’s allies, including John Eastman, a conservative lawyer and architect of the legal strategy for then-Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally throw out state Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, and Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department official who drafted a letter urging state officials to appoint new slates of electors.
“Even if it were true that President Trump genuinely believed the election was stolen, this is no defense,” the committee wrote in its executive summary. “No president can ignore the courts and purposely violate the law no matter what supposed ‘justification’ he or she presents.”
The committee’s recommendation that the Justice Department pursue criminal charges against Trump is not binding, and federal prosecutors will ultimately decide whether to take such a step. Attorney General Merrick Garland has appointed a special counsel, Jack Smith, to investigate the alleged efforts to interfere with the transfer of power after the 2020 election. The Justice Department declined to comment.
Trump, who has launched a 2024 presidential bid, has maintained he did nothing wrong on Jan. 6, and has repeatedly called the committee’s investigation a “witch hunt.” The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Here are the four areas in which the committee says Trump could face criminal charges:
Obstruction of an official proceeding
For its recommendation of prosecuting Trump for obstruction of an official proceeding, the committee argued he was “directly and personally involved” in the effort to delay the counting of Electoral College votes during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, and acted with a “corrupt” purpose. Members cited not only Trump’s attempt to pressure Pence to prevent the certification of state electoral votes, but also the plan to submit fake slates of electors to Congress.
“Through action and inaction, President Trump obstructed, delayed and impeded the vote count,” the committee wrote of the joint session, which was temporarily halted after the mob of the former president’s supporters breached the Capitol building.
The committee also said it believes there is “sufficient evidence” for a criminal referral of Eastman based on his plan for Pence to refuse to count state electoral votes during the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, which it says he knew was illegal.
In a call with reporters after Monday’s meeting, Eastman defended his actions, saying he was providing legal advice that was well within the bounds of his duties as an attorney. “I consistently recommended that the vice president merely accede requests from state legislature” to delay certification of the election in order to investigate voter fraud claims, Eastman said.
Charlie Burnham, an attorney for Eastman, said the referral has “no legal significance” and “carries no more weight than anyone else who has an opinion on what the Department of Justice should be focused on.”
Conspiracy to defraud the United States
For the possible violation of the statute involving conspiracy to defraud the United States, the panel again cited what it said was Trump’s multi-part plan to reverse the outcome of the election, as well as Clark’s participation in the effort to keep Trump in office. The committee also highlighted Trump’s repeated claims the 2020 election was rife with widespread fraud, despite having been told by multiple close aides there was no evidence of significant fraud.
The committee repeatedly referenced opinions from U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in a dispute over emails from Eastman that investigators sought to obtain. Carter in March found it “more likely than not” that Trump and Eastman “dishonestly conspired” to obstruct the congressional proceedings on Jan. 6, and said emails from Eastman were in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
“The Committee believes there is sufficient evidence for a criminal referral of the multi-part plan described in this Report … as the very purpose of the plan was to prevent the lawful certification of Joe Biden’s election as President,” the executive summary stated.
Clark could not immediately be reached for comment.
Conspiracy to make a false statement
The committee’s recommendation of prosecution for conspiracy to make a false statement centers on the fake slates of electors submitted by Trump’s supporters to Congress and the National Archives.
“There should be no question that Section 1001 applies here. The false electoral slates were provided both to the Executive Branch (the National Archives) and the Legislative Branch,” the committee wrote. “The statute applies to ‘any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.’ It is well established that false statements to Congress can constitute violations of Section 1001.”
The panel said that Trump relied on the existence of the fake electors from states where President Biden prevailed as a basis for claiming Pence could reject or delay the certification of Mr. Biden’s electors, and he and Eastman requested the Republican National Committee organize the effort to have Trump’s presidential electors meet and cast their votes, as party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told the select committee.
“The committee believes that sufficient evidence exists for a criminal referral of President Trump for illegally engaging in a conspiracy to violate Section 1001; the evidence indicates that he entered into an agreement with Eastman and others to make the false statement (the fake electoral certificates), by deceitful or dishonest means, and at least one member of the conspiracy engaged in at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy,” according to the executive summary.
“Incite,” “assist” or “aid and comfort” an insurrection
The committee argues that Trump’s actions related to the Capitol assault constitute a violation of federal law regarding assisting or aiding and comforting an insurrection.
In addition to encouraging his supporters to “descend on the Capitol” on Jan. 6 to protest the election results, the panel highlighted his comments at a rally outside the White House urging them to march to the Capitol. Investigators also cited Trump’s tweet the afternoon of Jan. 6 condemning Pence for rebuffing his pressure campaign and claiming he didn’t have the “courage” to discard state electoral votes as evidence he inflamed the crowd.
The committee made the case that as the mob of Trump’s supporters continued to stream into the Capitol, prompting the evacuation of lawmakers from the House and Senate chambers, the former president refused to condemn the violence or urge the crowd to disperse, ignoring pleas from his staff and family members to do so.
“Evidence obtained by the Committee also indicates that President Trump did not want to provide security assistance to the Capitol during that violent period,” the panel said in its executive summary. “This appalling behavior by our Commander in Chief occurred despite his affirmative Constitutional duty to act, to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.”
The purpose and impact of Trump’s actions, it said, “were to mobilize a large crowd to descend on the Capitol.”
Other conspiracy statutes
The committee said other violations of federal law by Trump may have occurred, though they require proof of a conspiracy.
The first prohibits a conspiracy to “prevent, by force, intimidation or threat,” any office-holder from discharging their duties. Three members of the Oath Keepers were convicted of violating this law, and the committee said White House chief of staff Mark Meadows may have relevant information.
The second statute prohibits conspiracy to “overthrow, put down or to destroy by force the government of the United States … or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”
Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers, was convicted of seditious conspiracy last month, and several members of the far-right Proud Boys, including its founder Enrique Tarrio, were also charged with conspiracy to use force to stop the transfer of presidential power on Jan. 6. Their trial started Monday.
Referrals to the House Ethics Committee
In addition to urging the Justice Department to prosecute Trump and his allies, the select committee also referred at least four Republican House members to the House Ethics Committee for failure to comply with subpoenas. Those lawmakers are House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona.
The panel issued subpoenas to each of the Republicans in May for information related to its probe, but none complied with either voluntary or compulsory requests.
A spokesman for Jordan called the committee’s move “just another partisan and political stunt.” Representatives for the other three members did not immediately respond to a request for comment after Monday’s meeting.
Andrew Warren, dismissed by Gov. DeSantis for refusing to prosecute abortion crimes, sues for reinstatement
In a video message, Warren said that in addition to violating his free speech rights, DeSantis broke Florida law.
“He’s violated the Florida Constitution by removing me from office without any legal justification, throwing out the results of a fair and free election,” Warren said.
DeSantis’s office dismissed Warren’s federal complaint as “baseless.”
“It’s not surprising Warren, who was suspended for refusing to follow the law, would file a legally baseless lawsuit challenging his suspension. We look forward to responding in court,” a spokesperson for DeSantis said in a statement.
Warren has been in office since 2016 and was reelected in 2020 with more than 53 percent of the vote.
DeSantis suspending Warren and replacing him with a person of his choosing sets a concerning tone for democracy in Florida, Louis Virelli, professor of law at Stetson University College of Law, told The Washington Post.
“A small step from here is if I, as governor, don’t think a state attorney is being hard enough on a particular crime, I’m going to replace you with a person I prefer,” Virelli said. “It’s overriding voters’ choice.”
Virelli said the complaint is one of the few options available to Warren if he wants to keep his job.
Part of Warren’s argument in the complaint is that the Florida Constitution limits removal to true incompetence or inability to do the work and violation of a legal obligation.
“Warren is being punished for what he said and not what he did,” Virelli said.
Shortly after Warren’s suspension, his office’s chief communications officer was told she had to resign and be paid through the month — or be fired on the spot.
Melanie Snow-Waxler, who started her role in the state attorney’s office in May, was terminated Aug. 12.
“This illegal firing is part of a troubling pattern of retaliation,” her attorney, Ryan Barack, said in a statement this week.
DeSantis and Warren are ideological opposites who have publicly sparred over topics like abortion, covid restrictions, and criminal justice and transgender rights.
In June, the day that the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling was handed down, effectively ending the federal right to abortion access, Warren joined dozens of prosecutors around the country in signing a pledge that they would “refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions.”
In 2021, Warren signed a similar joint statement with other elected prosecutors affirming that health-care decisions should be “private discretion” and said they would not use their office to “promote the criminalization of gender-affirming health care or transgender people.”
DeSantis’s administration has pursued aggressive policies to increasingly restrict medical treatments like puberty blockers and hormone therapy; just last week, the state barred people from using Medicare coverage to help pay for gender-affirming care.
Since Warren’s suspension, he and DeSantis have disagreed over the nature of the suspension. While Warren characterized his suspension as “temporary” in his filing, DeSantis’s office has said Warren is no longer the state attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County after the governor appointed Susan Lopez, a Republican judge who backed Warren’s opponent in 2016.
Abortion: Some big-city district attorneys vow not to prosecute providers, setting up legal clashes in red states
More than a third of the district attorneys representing the 25 most populous counties in states that have banned or are set to ban abortion have publicly vowed not to prosecute abortion cases, according to a CNN review, potentially limiting the impact of the new restrictions.
Their declarations could set up legal clashes between more liberal prosecutors in urban centers and red-state attorneys general and legislators, some of whom are already planning to wrest control of abortion cases from local authorities.
“A prosecutor really does have a lot of discretion to decide their priorities and cases,” said Rachel Barkow, a New York University law school professor who has studied prosecutors’ role in the criminal justice system. “But they could get voted out of office, or states could give the authority to prosecute to someone else.”
While assurances from prosecutors were helpful, abortion providers would likely be “concerned that that’s not sufficiently concrete and permanent,” she added.
The district attorneys speaking out — whose jurisdictions are home to more than 10 million people — argue that they have the authority to prioritize other crimes instead of bringing cases against abortion providers.
“A prosecutor’s job is to protect public safety, and to enforce this law will not only fail to promote or protect public safety but will also lead to more harm,” José Garza, the district attorney of Travis County, Texas, which includes Austin, declared in a statement.
Other district attorneys who have vowed not to prosecute abortion represent Dallas, San Antonio, Milwaukee, Nashville, and Birmingham, among other cities. CNN’s review included the 13 states with trigger laws that ban abortion following the Supreme Court decision, as well as two other states where abortion bans have gone into effect, Wisconsin and Alabama. Courts are reviewing some of those bans.
Many of the district attorneys signed a joint statement released Friday in which they committed to “refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortions.”
“They don’t all agree on the issue of abortion, but what they agree on is that this is not a smart or efficient or wise use of limited prosecutorial resources,” said Miriam Krinsky, the executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution, a criminal justice reform group that organized the statement. “They are going to become the last line of defense.”
Abortion opponents have blasted the district attorneys who joined the effort. James Bopp, Jr., the general counsel of the National Right to Life Committee, called their stance “anti-democratic.” His group has proposed a model law for legislators that would allow state attorneys general to take over prosecution of abortion when local prosecutors decline to do so.
“They were not elected to decide what the law was,” Bopp said of the district attorneys. “If they don’t want to enforce these laws, then we’ll have somebody else do it.”
Other district attorneys in states with abortion bans told CNN that they would evaluate abortion prosecutions on a case-by-case basis.
“It is a dangerous path for a DA to make broad and hypothetical statements without an actual charge or case before them,” Amy Weirich, the head prosecutor in Shelby County, Tennessee, which includes Memphis, said in an email. Tennessee’s trigger law banning abortion is set to go into effect within the next two months, while a more limited ban on abortions after around six weeks of pregnancy went into effect Tuesday.
The impact of district attorneys declining to prosecute will likely vary from state to state. In Texas, even if local district attorneys don’t charge abortion providers criminally, state Attorney General Ken Paxton — who has applauded the Supreme Court decision — can still file civil suits against providers, potentially making them liable for huge fines.
That means abortion clinics in the state would “still have a lot of legal jeopardy,” said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a University of Houston law professor. (A judge has temporarily blocked Texas’ total ban, allowing some clinics to reopen and resume abortions up to around six weeks of pregnancy, but the reprieve is likely to only last a few weeks.)
In addition, a Texas state representative has said he plans to introduce a bill during the state’s legislative session next year to allow district attorneys in neighboring counties to file charges if a local DA declines to prosecute an abortion case. Abortion opponents have also suggested that district attorneys who vow not to prosecute abortion could be removed from office under a state law targeting local officials who “neglect” to “perform a duty imposed on the officer by law” — although Thompson said she thought that was unlikely.
Still, the uncertainty has encouraged some prosecutors to tread more carefully. Even as district attorneys in Texas’ other biggest cities signed the letter vowing not to prosecute abortion, Harris County DA Kim Ogg, who represents Houston, has been more circumspect. She decried the high court ruling and joined a demonstration in support of abortion rights, but said in a statement that she would evaluate abortion prosecutions on a case-by-case basis because she does “not want to take the chance of being found to be in dereliction of our duty.”
A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Federation of America said that her group wasn’t aware of any provider that would continue providing abortion based on prosecutors’ statements alone. In Nashville, for example, while DA Glenn Funk vowed not to prosecute abortion providers and compared the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling to the pro-slavery Dred Scott case, the local Planned Parenthood chapter said his statement wouldn’t let them ignore state restrictions.
“While we appreciate the support of Nashville’s DA for our reproductive freedom,” said Savannah Bearden, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi, the group plans to “continue to abide by the law” in order to protect its patients and providers and make sure its clinic can continue providing other health care services.
Some providers are also worried that statutes of limitation for state abortion laws could outlast district attorneys’ terms in office, leaving open the possibility of future prosecutors charging cases that their predecessors declined to charge.
Promises not to prosecute could be more impactful in purple states where local district attorneys are backed up by state officials. In Wisconsin, for example, district attorneys in the two largest cities, Milwaukee and Madison, have said they won’t prosecute cases under the state’s century-old abortion ban that went into effect last week. Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, has also promised to grant clemency to any medical provider convicted of abortion, and State Attorney General Josh Kaul has argued against the ban in court.
“If the voters want a district attorney who prosecutes women for seeking an abortion or licensed providers who are acting in the best interest of their patients, they will need to elect someone else,” said Dane County DA Ismael Ozanne, who represents Madison.
Meanwhile, abortion is likely to become a driving issue in high-stakes elections for DA positions. In Maricopa County, Arizona, one of the most populous counties in the US, the Republican DA who has said she would prosecute some abortion cases is facing a special election later this year. The only Democratic candidate in the race has said she won’t prosecute abortions.
Rachel Mitchell, the Maricopa DA, told local news outlets that she would decline to prosecute providers who perform abortions on victims of rape or incest, but enforce Arizona’s other abortion laws. A ban on abortion after 15 weeks is set to go into effect in Arizona in September, and state officials are debating whether another pre-Roe ban is in effect.
Similar battle lines over abortion have been drawn between candidates for district attorney in elections later this year in Tennessee.
“We’re going to see elections framed around this issue,” Barkow, the NYU professor, predicted. “A lot of voters will be mobilized on both sides,” she said, and in what are typically low-turnout local races, “it could be the kind of thing that makes a difference.”
Supreme Court says Oklahoma can prosecute crimes in ‘Indian Country’
“The Court’s precedents establish that Indian country is part of a State’s territory and that, unless preempted, States have jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Amy Coney Barrett.
Two years ago, the court said about 43 percent of Oklahoma, including the city of Tulsa, remains an American Indian reservation. That decision, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who dissented from Wednesday’s ruling, prevented state law enforcement from prosecuting Native Americans who commit crimes on Indian land.
In his dissent Wednesday, Gorsuch said that the majority had misread history and that tribes retain their authority unless Congress intervenes.
“Truly, a more ahistorical and mistaken statement of Indian law would be hard to fathom,” wrote Gorsuch, who was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
“Tribes are not private organizations within state boundaries. Their reservations are not glorified private campgrounds. … Tribal sovereignty means that the criminal laws of the States ‘can have no force’ on tribal members within tribal bounds unless and until Congress clearly ordains otherwise,” he wrote.
The case involved the state prosecution of Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Native American, who was convicted of severely neglecting his 5-year-old disabled stepdaughter, a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Castro-Huerta appealed his 35-year sentence, saying in part that the state did not have the authority to prosecute him because the victim was Native American and the alleged crime took place in Indian territory.
While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued two related opinions that greatly increased the span of Indian country in Oklahoma and held that the state lacked authority to prosecute a Native American who had committed a crime in Indian country against a fellow Native American.
Oklahoma told the court that the shift to tribal and federal court after the 2020 ruling had forced the state to drop some prosecutions and some victims to go through second trials. Castro-Huerta subsequently pleaded guilty in federal court and accepted a seven-year sentence.
Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) called the ruling Wednesday a “pivotal moment” that would allow the state to prosecute non-Native Americans and to “protect Native victims.”
“Justice has been delayed and denied to thousands of Native victims in our state for no reason other than their race. Now Oklahoma law enforcement can help uphold and enforce the law equally, as we have done for over a century,” Stitt said in a statement.
In a statement, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation said the Wednesday ruling is “an alarming step backward for justice on our reservation in cases where non-Native criminals commit crimes against Native people.”
“This will have a ripple effect throughout Indian Country across the United States,” the tribe said, adding that “public safety would be better served by expanding Tribal authority to prosecute any crime committed by any offender within our reservation boundaries rather than empowering entities that have demonstrated a lack of commitment to public safety on Indian lands.”
Court sides with Iraq War veteran
On another 5-to-4 decision, the justices sided with an Army reservist who wants to sue the state of Texas, saying he was treated improperly after he returned from war in Iraq.
At issue was federal legislation passed after the Persian Gulf War that prohibited employers from discriminating when rehiring veterans after their service. Congress’s intent was to encourage Americans to enlist in the military by protecting them upon return to civilian life.
But Texas maintained that the Constitution did not allow Texas state trooper Le Roy Torres to sue it in state court because states have sovereign immunity from such claims.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority that was wrong.
“Text, history, and precedent show that the States, in coming together to form a Union, agreed to sacrifice their sovereign immunity for the good of the common defense,” Breyer wrote.
Courts in Texas and other states have said that Congress cannot authorize such lawsuits against the states in their own courts.
Breyer said that would in effect give individual states too much authority to retreat from national decisions about war.
“If a State — or even 25 States — decided to protest a war by refusing to employ returning servicemembers, Congress, on Texas’ telling, would be powerless to authorize private reinstatement suits against those States,” Breyer wrote. “The potentially debilitating effect on national security would not matter.”
He was joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh.
Thomas wrote a dissent nearly twice as long as Breyer’s opinion.
In his view, joined by Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett, states deserved more autonomy.
“Constitutional text, history, and precedent all show that when the States ratified the Constitution, they did not implicitly consent to private damages actions filed in their own courts — whether authorized by Congress’ war powers or any other Article I power,” Thomas wrote.
Torres was an Army reservist who was deployed in 2007 to Iraq, where he suffered lung damage from exposure to burn pits during his service. When he returned to Texas, he could no longer perform some of the duties as a trooper and asked for an accommodation.
He and the Texas Department of Public Safety disagree about whether a proper accommodation was offered, but Torres resigned and later sued for $5 million under the federal law. He and his wife subsequently started an organization that advocates for service members injured from toxic exposure.
The Biden administration defended the law as intended to provide job protection to reservists and National Guard members the military depends on as recruits.
The case is Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety.
Canada looks to prosecute crimes on the Moon
Issued on:
Ottawa (AFP) – Canadian lawmakers were set to vote Thursday on amending the nation’s Criminal Code to allow for the prosecution of crimes committed on the Moon.
The proposed change to the law — which was expected to be passed — was described in a 443-page budget implementation bill presented to Parliament this week.
Ottawa has already extended its jurisdiction over criminal acts committed by Canadian astronauts during space travel to the International Space Station.
They are treated the same as crimes committed in Canada.
The update comes as the number of space flights are increasing, and ahead of the first crewed mission to the Moon in more than 50 years set to launch in May 2024, with a Canadian astronaut expected to be on board the Artemis II lunar flyby.
Under the subheading Lunar Gateway, the Criminal Code amendment reads: “A Canadian crew member who, during a space flight, commits an act or omission outside Canada that if committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offence is deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada.”
This would include crimes en route to or on the Lunar Gateway station currently in the works to orbit the Moon, and also “on the surface of the Moon,” the document states.
Foreign astronauts who “threaten the life or security of a Canadian crew member” on a Canadian-supported space mission could also be prosecuted, according to the draft bill.
The Canadian Space Agency is participating in the NASA-led Lunar Gateway project, along with the European Space Agency and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.
Starting as early as 2026, the outpost will act as a staging point for robotic and crewed exploration of the lunar surface, as well as travel to Mars.
© 2022 AFP
Nassar investigation: AG Garland confirms ‘new evidence’ in review of decision not to prosecute FBI agents
Earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said that the department was reviewing the matter, including “new information that has come to light.”
Appearing before lawmakers for an oversight hearing Wednesday, Garland was asked by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy for an update on the review.
“I believe Deputy Attorney General Monaco said at her hearing that we are reviewing this matter. New evidence has come to light and that is cause for review of the matters that you’re discussing,” Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He did not provide further detail about the new evidence.
Sexual abuse allegations from gymnasts and the USA Gymnastics organization against Nassar were reported to the FBI in 2015 and 2016. An investigation was opened in 2018 into the FBI’s handling of the case, and a Justice Department inspector general report found that the FBI agents violated the agency’s policies by making false statements and failed to properly document complaints by the accusers.
The report also revealed that the Justice Department under both Garland and William Barr declined to prosecute either of the two former FBI agents — W. Jay Abbott and Michael Langeman — for allegedly failing to pursue the allegations of sexual abuse.
Last month, renowned gymnasts Simone Biles, Aly Raisman, McKayla Maroney and Maggie Nichols spoke before a Senate committee about how the FBI botched the investigation and handling of their allegations of sexual abuse against Nassar.
The FBI recently fired Langeman, the agent who had interviewed Maroney, while Abbott retired in early 2018.
Garland on Wednesday said that “heart-wrenching is not even strong enough as a description of what happened to those gymnasts and to the testimony they gave.”
Nassar is currently serving a 40-to-174-year state prison sentence after pleading guilty. More than 150 women and girls said he sexually abused them over the past two decades.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal questioned whether there’s an ethical violation that Josh Minkler, the former US attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, is representing Abbott.
Minkler’s office worked with Abbott when he allegedly botched the sexual abuse allegations against Nassar.
“I don’t know whether that’s a violation of ethical rules or some other kinds of Department of Justice policies, but it raises significant questions and the department should have an interest in them,” Blumenthal said.
Minkler served in the Indiana office from 2017 and resigned in November 2020. CNN has reached out to Minkler for comment.
This story has been updated with additional details Wednesday.
CNN’s Sarah Fortinsky contributed to this report.