#Law & Order: Criminal Intent

[alltrekvarnews]

Muere James McCaffrey: el Actor de 'Rescue Me', 'Max Payne' Tenía 65 años...

[thefirsthogokage]

I. Want. To. Vomit.

Bring back Bobby and Alex. Or better yet, let me do it and I'll give it a Blue Sky Era vibe that won't be out of place.

I can do it. I've done it. I've already got the script.

[gatekeeper-watchman]

Daily Devotionals for September 14, 2023 

Proverbs: God's Wisdom for the Day

Devotional Scripture:

Proverbs 24:23 (KJV): 23 These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect for persons in judgment. Proverbs 24:23 (AMP): 23 These also are sayings of the wise. To discriminate and be partial, having respect for persons in judging, is not good.

Thought for the Day

This verse is addressed to the wise, who are told not to discriminate or show partiality when sitting in a position of judgment. To make a fair judgment about anything, there first must be laws that are considered the standard in a situation. The standard for Christians consists of God's laws that are recorded in the Bible. These rules and commandments were given so that people could live blessed and peaceable lives. God's laws preserve order on earth and also show man his sin and need for a Savior. Those who walk in the Spirit, fulfill the law by loving others. They reap the blessings that come from walking in God's ways.

The Bible outlines various penalties for breaking God's laws. The ultimate penalty for sinners is that they will go to hell. I want to repeat what has been included in previous verses, because of its utmost importance. The good news is that Jesus, the son of God, came to the earth and died on the cross, giving Himself as the only sacrifice that could make atonement for our sins. He was raised from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of God. As the ultimate Judge, He is not a respecter of persons. What He will do for one, He will do for another. All who come to God through Jesus will be pardoned, no matter what sin they have committed. "But God commandeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more than, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Romans 5:8-10).

America's founding fathers were Christians and based much of their legal structure on the Bible's moral laws. Many laws in the U.S. are based directly on laws found in Deuteronomy. To our detriment, many sound laws have been altered or abandoned. Scripture describes times such as ours: "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time" (Daniel 7:25).

Our present-day judicial system has drifted from its original intent of protecting the innocent and convicting the wicked. Today, the law is being exploited by some people who want to use it for gain. Many are seeking outlandish settlements, that in the end, all people will pay for. Through unfair settlements such as these, lawyers are the ones most rewarded. Of course, not all lawyers are greedy. Many good lawyers seek to help and serve their clients. However, due to a faulty legal system, the protection of the innocent has often been overruled, while criminals are not justly dealt with. We need to return to Biblical principles and shape our laws accordingly if we desire to see justice in our land. "The God of Israel said...He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God" (2 Samuel 23:3). "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do, right?" (Genesis 18:25b).

Prayer Devotional for the Day

Dear heavenly Father, I am eternally grateful that You have forgiven me of my sins and that You paid the price for them on the cross. Lord, I now want to serve You faithfully every day. I am also thankful that You are a righteous judge and I can always commit my case to You, and You will treat me fairly in everything. Since You are no respecter of persons, You will do this for all who look to You. Lord, I pray that as a nation, we will be given righteous judges so that all people will receive justice in the courts of our land. I ask this in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.

From: Steven P. Miller @ParkermillerQ,  gatekeeperwatchman.org Founder of Gatekeeper-Watchman International Groups Wednesday, September 13, 2023, Jacksonville, Florida., Duval County, USA. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Sparkermiller.JAX.FL.USA, https://www.facebook.com/StevenParkerMillerQ Instagram: steven_parker_miller_1956 Twitter: @GatekeeperWatchman1, @ParkermillerQ, https://twitter.com/StevenPMiller6 Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/gatekeeperwatchman, https://www.tumblr.com/gatekeeper-watchman https://www.pinterest.com/GatekeeperWatchman1/ #GWIG, #GWIN, #GWINGO, #Ephraim1, #IAM, #Sparkermiller, #Eldermiller1981

[checkoutmybookshelf]

The Cassidy Brothers

CE Murphy is a favorite on this blog, to the point that I, a strict physical book reader, was so amped for this new book that I caved and bought the e-book (with the intention to also purchase a physical copy when those come out, because we must have standards and frankly reading on the Kindle app on any device is a goddamn nightmare and I hate it). Then I was so caught up in the exploits of the Cassidy Brothers that I inhaled this book between tasks for a wedding I was helping to throw. Let's talk Through the Fire.

This book is NOT Supernatural fanfic. Anybody on the internet saying that a) doesn't know what they're talking about, b) doesn't understand how copyright and publishing laws work, and c) needs to stop saying that. Plus, I tried for years to like Supernatural (Dean Winchester is very pretty to look at) and never managed to do it. Through the Fire had me at hello.

What this book IS is an exploration of Chris and Nick Cassidy as they come back together after a three-year estrangement to "bury" their father. Their dad made a living as a bounty hunter for both common criminals and grendels (I could define this for you, but I won't. Read the book.). Chris was pulled into the family business and into raising his younger brother after their mother's death. Then emotions get complicated when Chris so successfully raises his brother that Nick gets into college and is 3/4 of the way into med school when they have to come back together.

That's about all I'm going to give you for plot though, because--and I cannot stress this enough--I STRONGLY recommend reading this book.

I will say, however, that the sometimes cruel and sometimes tender but always deeply loving relationship between these brothers was the heart and soul of the book, and it pulled me through as a reader without my even noticing. The sheer immersion was excellent.

The other real strength of this book was the feeling of trying to be between and navigate class. Nick was raised in a family that was perpetually short of money, but in college he clearly learned fast how to pass in a more affluent world. Murphy slams those two worlds together and doesn't for a moment shy away from the fallout and emotional toll of that collision. Honestly my favorite moments were, in no particular order, a rich student saying "My parents can make it right with the school if I miss my midterms" and the exchange about painting cars properly yourself, followed by "Why don't you just take it to a shop?" The silence and cringe were PALPABLE.

Books about brothers are not new, but it's rare that I gravitate toward them. If I could yeet this book into readers' brains (the story though, not the physical book. We do not yeet physical books at people's heads.), I absolutely would, because the story of these two brothers is just that good.

[lezwatchtv]

The Chung-Chung-Changes of "Law & Order"

Over the thirty odd years we've had "Law & Order" on our screens, in one permutation or another, their representation has changed. Join us on a dive into the Chung-Chung-Changes of #LawAndOrder

After I posted about how show scores really haven’t improved as much as we might have hoped over the years, I wanted to find a way to demonstrate how there has been active improvements to representation on mainstream television. And the best way to do that is with a show (or rather, a series of shows) that have been on the air consistently since 1990. That’s right. Today we’re deep-diving into…

[cultfaction]

Craig “muMs” Grant passes away aged 52 years old

Craig “muMs” Grant passes away aged 52 years old

It is Cult Faction’s sad duty to report that poet and actor Craig “muMs” Grant has died at the age of 52. Grant, who starred as Arnold “Poet” Jackson in Oz, died due to natural causes, according to his representatives at the Ellis Talent Group. Through his career Grant also appeard in The Sopranos, Dark Water, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Boston Legal, Grand Theft Auto IV, Law & Order: Special…

[eriksamaya]

Tread Perilously: Special Review Unit -- The Good

Tread Perilously: Special Review Unit — The Good

Tread Perilously returns to the case files of the Special Review Unit for the episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent known as “The Good.” When Detectives Mike Logan (Chris Noth) and Carolyn Barek (Annabella Sciorra) get tasked with rounding up a young man for car theft, they find themselves in Nassau County where the man’s parents are found beaten to death in their own home. He immediately…

[mycelebritylifeus]

Here's What You'll Need a Peacock Premium Subscription to Watch

Here’s What You’ll Need a Peacock Premium Subscription to Watch

Peacock has officially taken flight! NBCUniversal’s new streaming service has finally launched wide, which means you now have a great excuse to cancel all of your plans and enjoy some waffles and all the bacon along with your umpteenth binge of Parks and Recreation or start your day off right with

…

Read More >

Other Links From TVGuide.com

Two and a Half Men

Superstore

The King of Queens

Ever…

[trans-advice]

The Social Democratic minority government plans to add the terms gender identity (kønsidentitet), gender expression (kønsudtryk) and sex characteristics (kønskarakteristika) to section 266b of the criminal law code – commonly known as the ‘Racism Paragraph’.

Newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad, which was first to report the proposed law change, writes that it would be made with the intention of preventing hate speech against trans people.

The law change would mean that hate speech against trans and intersexual people would be treated as a crime on the same basis as all homophobic and racist speech.

The proposal is supported by left wing parties the Red Green Alliance and Socialist People’s Party, with the Social Liberal party also in support in principle. As such, it has a theoretical parliamentary majority in support.

Denmark’s racism paragraph was originally enacted in 1939 in an effort to prevent antisemitism.

Given the cultural value placed on free speech in Denmark, it has traditionally been interpreted in a way that still allows pointed statements to be made in public debate without these being judged as racist, according to an expert on the law.

“The paragraph works well,” University of Southern Denmark law professor Sten Schaumburg-Müller told Kristeligt Dagblad.

“You have to reach a certain level of offensiveness before statements break the law, and this is out of consideration for free speech,” he explained.

“For example, you would have to say that a particular group are cancerous tumours or rodents that must be exterminated in order for it to be criminal,” the professor elaborated.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 1, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

Today, by a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court handed down Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee saying that the state of Arizona did not violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) with laws that limited ballot delivery to voters, family members, or caregivers, or when it required election officials to throw out ballots that voters had cast in the wrong precincts by accident.

The fact that voting restrictions affect racial or ethnic groups differently does not make them illegal, Justice Samuel Alito wrote. “The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.”

The court also suggested that concerns about voter fraud—which is so rare as to be virtually nonexistent—are legitimate reasons to restrict voting.

We are reliving the Reconstruction years after the Civil War.

That war had changed the idea of who should have a say in American society. Before the war, the ideal citizen was a white man, usually a property owner. But those were the very people who tried to destroy the country, while during the war, Black Americans and women, people previously excluded from politics, gave their lives and their livelihoods to support the government.

After the war, when white southerners tried to reinstate laws that returned the Black population to a position that looked much like enslavement, Congress in 1867 gave Black men the right to vote for delegates to new state constitutions. Those new constitutions, in turn, gave Black men the right to vote.

In order to stop voters from ratifying the new constitutions, white southerners who had no intention of permitting Black Americans to gain rights organized as the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize voters. While they failed to prevent states from ratifying the new constitutions, the KKK continued to beat, rape, and murder Black voters in the South.

So, in 1870, Congress established the Department of Justice to defend Black rights in the South. It also passed a series of laws that made it a federal crime to interfere with voting and with the official duties of an elected officer. And it passed, and the states ratified, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, declaring that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

Immediately, white Americans determined to stop Black participation in government turned to a new argument. During the Civil War, the Republican Party had not only expanded Black rights, but had also invented the nation’s first national taxation. For the first time, how people voted directly affected other people’s pocketbooks.

In 1871, white southerners began to say that they did not object on racial grounds to Black voting, but rather on the grounds that formerly enslaved men were impoverished and were electing to office men who promised to give them things—roads, for example, and schools and hospitals—to be paid for with tax dollars. Because white men were the only ones with property in the postwar South, such legislation would redistribute wealth from white men to Black people. It was, they charged, “socialism.”

In 1876, white southerners reclaimed control of the last remaining states they had not yet won by insisting they were “redeeming” their states from the corruption created when Black voters elected leaders who would use tax dollars for public programs.

In 1890, a new constitution in Mississippi, which at the time was about 58% Black, restricted voting not on racial grounds but through a poll tax and a “literacy” test applied against Black voters alone. Mississippi led the way for new restrictions across the country. Although Black and Brown Americans continually challenged the new Jim and Juan Crow laws that silenced them, voting registration for people of color fell into single digits.

These laws stayed in place for 75 years. Then, in 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, designed to undo voter suppression laws once and for all. The VRA worked. In Mississippi in 1965, just 6.7% of eligible Black voters were registered to vote. Two years later, that number was 59.8%, although there was still a 32-point gap in registration between Blacks and whites. By 1988, that gap had narrowed to 6.3%, and in 2012, 90.2% of eligible Black residents were registered compared to 82.4% of non-Hispanic whites.

The Voting Rights Act was considered so important that just 15 years ago, in 2006, Congress voted almost unanimously to reauthorize it.  

But the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts, who has long disliked the VRA, has chipped away at the law, cutting deeply into it in 2013 with the Shelby County v. Holder decision. And now, with three new justices appointed by former president Trump, the court has weakened it further.

To what end are we returning to the 1890s?

The restrictive voting measures passed by Republican-dominated legislatures are designed to keep Republicans in power. Today that means allegiance to former president Trump, whose Trump Organization and Trump Payroll Corporation were indicted by a New York grand jury today, along with Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, on 15 felony counts, including a scheme to defraud, conspiracy, grand larceny, criminal tax fraud, and falsifying business records.

The indictment alleges that the schemes involve federal, as well as state and local, crimes. New York Attorney General Letitia James emphasized that the investigation is not over.

Republican lawmakers are lining up behind the former president so closely that last night,

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) threatened to take away the committee assignments of anyone agreeing to work on the select committee to investigate the events of January 6 that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is putting together after Senate Republicans filibustered the creation of a bipartisan independent committee.

(McCarthy’s declaration prompted Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), who appears appalled at the direction his party has taken, to respond “Who gives a s--t?” He added: “I do think the threat of removing committees is ironic, because you won't go after the space lasers and white supremacist people but those who tell the truth.”)

Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) nonetheless said she was “honored” to join the committee, along with seven Democrats. While it is unclear if McCarthy will add more Republicans, it will now get underway. The committee includes House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), both of whom showed extraordinary ability to assess huge amounts of material when they managed Trump’s impeachment trials.

That the Republicans have fought so hard against an investigation of the January 6 insurrection suggests we might well learn things that reflect poorly on certain lawmakers.

So, today’s news puts the American people in the position of watching as a political party, lined up behind a man now in legal jeopardy, who might be involved in an attack on our government, tries to cement its hold on power.

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court undercuts voting rights in this country,” President Biden said, “and makes it all the more crucial to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and expand voting protections.”

“Our democracy depends on it.”

—-

Notes:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1272892

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/defying-mccarthys-ban

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/01/kinzinger-jan-6-investigation-threat-497505

Acyn @AcynSo he’s concerned about setting a precedent about holding former federal officials accountable 486 Retweets2,740 Likes

July 1st 2021

https://www.vox.com/2015/3/6/8163229/voting-rights-act-1965

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222/

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20982368/new-york-v-trump-org-allen-weisselberg.pdf

Allan Smith @akarl_smithStatement from NY AG James: "Today is an important marker in the ongoing criminal investigation of the Trump Organization and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg. ... This investigation will continue" 420 Retweets1,350 Likes

July 1st 2021

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[klynn-stormz]

Legally Swan Chapter 3

AO3: 1 I 2 I 3 I

CH 3

Emma looked around the small dorm room; it was bigger than she was expecting it to be, but still the size of a closet, a twin bed sat on side of the room, facing a small window, the closet made her cringe and think that it was a good thing she had packed light. She didn’t care much about the size, she’d slept in smaller accommodations before, and honestly, she had this gut churning excitement coursing through her. Here she was a Harvard, holy shit she was a Harvard, she had done it! She had hoped and dreamed about it, but she always had that sliver of doubt that it would not go in her favor. But she had done it and now she was here to prove herself. She thought back to her mom’s final words to her before she got in her little bug to drive cross-country to Cambridge.

“I know you have an idea of why you are doing this, but please try to put yourself first Emma. Make sure that you are happy rather than trying to make others happy.”

She understood her mother’s reluctance to accept that she was doing this for Neal, and maybe she was doing this for herself as well, she just needed to prove to her that Neal was worth it. Because he was, wasn’t he? Emma has met him her first year at UCLA, they had been together for a while and just seemed perfect. So what if he told her things she needed to fix about herself, he was just trying to help her be a better person. And sometime he was annoyed if he felt she had bested him on something, it as just his pride, it wasn’t a big deal when he put her down. She already knew most of what he told her was true anyway. She wasn’t the prettiest without makeup or good clothes, he just wanted her to look her best, there was nothing wrong with that. He thought she wasn’t smart, he had told her that before he broke up, but if she ever tried to show him she was smart, he would get angry and say she was just trying to one up him. She stopped trying to show him. The dumb blonde act wasn’t hard to keep up when people expected you to be that. She was certain that this would show him who she was and how perfect she was for him.

“Henry, are you ready to become a lawyer?” She asked her little dog, he perked up and barked at her, obviously agreeing.

When Emma had been with Ingrid for about six months, Ingrid had noticed she was showing symptoms of anxiety. It wasn’t until she witnessed a bad anxiety attack of hers that she finally convinced Emma to go to a doctor with her. When she was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder Emma felt even more broken than she had before. The doctor recommended medicine to help her through the attacks, and even suggested a service dog to help her during the attacks; she has shown reluctance to the first and interest in the second. Ingrid had immediately gone online to find the best service dog providers and with all permissions filled out she had gotten Emma dog who had recently completed training.

Henry didn’t seem like much, he was tiny and pretty scrawny, but Emma had fallen in love on site, and vice versa. Since then they were inseparable. It had been nerve-wracking trying to make sure that they would accept her bringing Henry to Harvard with her, of course by law they had to, but service dog laws were still minimal, and most people assumed that she was just using that as an excuse to drag her dog everywhere with her. Since getting Henry and finding the right medication her anxiety attacks had been reduced drastically. While she still had them, they weren’t as debilitating nor painful as they had been.

She was taken out of her thoughts by another bark from Henry, and she got to work on unpacking her room. It was two days before the semester would officially begin, all of her books were out, she was trying to make sure she had done all the reading required for each class before they began. A lot of the language was hard to understand at first, but she was starting to get the hang of it. Once she was all unpacked she relaxed on her bed to watch a few Netflix episodes she has missed, but after a few hours she felt restless. Maybe it was time to do some exploring around town.

---

It was a college town, so there was some nightlife, but it was tame compared to what she had dealt with at UCLA. She found a small bar at one end of town called the Rabbit Hole, it wasn’t crowded but it wasn’t dead inside either. After ordering a beer and finding a quiet booth in the back, she pulled out one of her textbooks and began going over the reading for her first class tomorrow, Law & Ethics. It was with a teacher named Professor Elsa Arendale, Emma had looked up reviews for her on a rate my professor site. She seemed harsh, cold even, with most of the students saying if you didn’t have the right answers she would kick you out of class. Emma did not want to be kicked out on her first day, and with her luck it would happen, so she was going to be prepared as she could.

“I don’t think studying is the best option at a bar on a Saturday night love.” A smooth British voice interrupted her studying.

“Not your love.” She replied automatically, not moving her eyes away from the textbook.

“Well then, I’ll need a name to call you by.” He responded; his cheerful voice seemingly not affected by her ‘back off’ tone.

“Look, I’m really not in the mood to deal with a man who assumes I need company when I'm obviously busy.” She sniped back, finally turning her eyes towards him.

Everything froze for a moment when her eyes met the most gorgeous vivid blue ones she had ever seen. He had a square, slightly stubbled jaw his mouth was stretched into a beautiful grin, one of his eyebrows was raised as she took him in. His dark hair brushed at his forehead, it made her want to run her fingers through it and see if it was as soft as it looked. Taken back by her thoughts she blinked and tried to focus.

“Well? Can I get a name now?” He asked. “I might just keep calling you love.”

“You’re going to stick around long enough? Really?” She asked, suspicious and not really liking his overall pushiness.

He shrugged before replying. “Not if you really don’t want me too, you looked stressed while reading and I thought I’d see if I could make you smile. I’d say I’ve almost accomplished it.”

She held back a small smile "And your way of doing it was to critique me?" She settled on staying annoyed with him. She definitely didn't need this right now.

"Well when you put it like that, you're right, bad form." He agreed. He grabbed her hand and brushed his lips over her knuckles. "My sincerest apologies."

She smiled and blushed a little at his actions. Emma hoped that the bar was dark enough he wouldn't see. "Since you seem intent on staying." She gestured for him to sit down

“Killian Jones as your service.” He smiled and again she was struck by just how gorgeous it was.

“Emma Swan.” She finally conceded, much to his apparent delight.

“Swan, it suits you. Now what in the hell are you doing at a bar on a Saturday night with law textbooks?”

“I don’t know you well enough to give you my life story, but I’ll tell you it’s my first year at Harvard and I’m trying to make sure I’m prepared, but I needed to get out of my room for a bit.”

“Ah, that makes much more sense. When I’m not saving damsels in distress, I’m getting ready for my final year.” Killian gave her a crooked smile.

“Hey, the only one who saves me is me. In fact I’d go as far to say that you are distracting me from my purpose.” She glared at him.

He put his hands up in placation. “Love, you were about to die of boredom or a migraine, I couldn’t very well let that happen! Besides, now that I’m here I can give you inside advice on the teachers you’ll be dealing with.”

Emma tilted her head at that, it would be nice to have some first hand information on the professors.

“Let me see your schedule.” Killian said, holding out his right hand. Emma rolled her eyes, but thought it would be nice to have a little more information from a senior who had probably dealt with most of the teachers she would meet. Pulling it up on her phone, she handed it over. He scrolled through, one eyebrow raising as he saw her classes. She already had it memorized:

7am-9am MWF-Ms. Elsa Arendale: Law and Ethics

9:30am-10:30am MWF-Mr. Isaac Print: Legal Research 101

11:15am-1:30pm MWF-Mr. Robert Gold: Complex Law & Politics

8am-11am TTH- Mr. Graham Humbert: Criminal Law Introduction

12pm-2pm TTH- Ms. Ruby Lucas: Civil Law

“Wow, you’ve got some good ones. In fact most of these will probably end up being your teacher through the rest of university.” He commented.

“So what can you tell me about them?” She asked, trying not to seem too eager.

“Well, Ms. Arendale is a hardass, she rules her class like a kingdom. Make sure you are over prepared for her, if not she’ll have no qualms kicking you out. She doesn’t tolerate people with no drive, so you’ll need to make sure you try to speak up every class. Mr. Print is, well, creepy. I honestly don’t know why he’s a teacher for law, he’s much more interested in news and politics than anything else, sit in the back in his class, he tends to lisp and spit.” He gave her a crooked grin, which she returned. “Mr. Gold hires four interns for his law office every year, so fight hard to make your case. He expects to see hard work, and likes a little blood in the water between classmates. Last semester he actually had a fist fight break out in one of his classes, he didn’t try to stop it, let them fight till one was unconscious. While the student was carried out by a few of her friends, he proceeded to lecture us about being prepared to go to war to prove your point. He doesn’t have any ethics, no qualms as long as he wins.”

Emma shifted uncomfortably as he related this information. He caught it and quickly backtracked. “He’s not the worst person, he’s just… well,” He paused for a moment to think about it. “he’s like a crocodile. Just waiting for some unsuspecting creature to get close enough to snap.”

“I thought lawyers were supposed to be sharks.” Emma joked.

“Oh most of them are, rest assured. But him, he’s different. Sharks go on the attack pretty fast, and most of the time their pray knows they’re after them. But crocodiles, they’re a quiet kind of dangerous. He doesn’t attack till he knows he can win. He has deep pockets and a lot of sources to keep him on top. Don’t let your guard down with him. And don’t give up on that internship, it’s the most coveted here, it pretty much guarantee’s you will have job offers when you graduate.”

Emma tilted her head. “Did you get the internship?”

“Aye, worked bloody hard for it too.” He spoke proudly.

“So how about the rest of the teachers?” She asked.

They got into a discussion about the rest the teachers she would have, which turned into recommendations for next semester, then his favorite classes. He tried to ask a few questions about her but she evaded them like a pro. It was getting late, time to go get some sleep, and Henry was probably missing her.

“I better get going.” She announced, gathered in books and standing up. He stood up as well and she was a little surprised that he walked out the door with her.

“May I walk you to your dorm milady?” He asked with that crooked grin, it made her heart stutter for a moment before she shook it off.

“Oh so now you’re a gentleman.” She asked, she wouldn't admit it was maybe a bit flirtatious.

“Darling, I’m always a gentleman.” Killian responded, his tongue flicking across his lips.

“I can handle myself. Thanks for the help tonight.” Emma said, and walked away.

“See you around Swan.” He called to her, making her smile at the nickname.

---

“I don’t have time to mess around Henry! I can’t get distracted by some guy.” Emma was pacing her room after returning from the bar. Henry barked and she rolled her eyes.

“Yes, okay, he was attractive.” Henry barked again. “Oh my gosh stop pushing! He was funny and interesting and maybe he didn’t see me as just a blonde. But none of that matters! I’m here for Neal remember? I’m going to prove to Neal that I’m good enough for him.”

She could almost see Henry roll his eyes. Great, she had no one to talk to but her dog now. She needed to sleep. Her room was all unpacked, she had studied, and she had had a fun night. Should could admit that to herself privately.

The next day was boring as well. Emma caught up on all reading for the classes, reading a few of the cases and quizzing herself to make sure she understood. She felt ready to go take on Harvard and show Neal who she was. Maybe she'd even run into the blue-eyed Brit a few more times.

[jornalvistolivre-blog]

3ª temporada de Law & Order: Criminal Intent chega em março na TNT Séries

3ª temporada de Law & Order: Criminal Intent chega em março na TNT Séries #Colony #CSI #CSI:Miami #CSI:NovaYork

Law & Order: Criminal Intent – 3ª temporada A série que é um spin-off da consagrada Law & Order retorna em sua terceira temporada como mais dramas que mostram a investigação de crimes, apresentando o ponto de vista do criminoso e os aspectos psicológico de cada um dos casos. Acompanhe o detetive Robert Goren (Vincent D’Onofrio), um brilhante investigador do departamento de homicídios que atua em…

[thefirsthogokage]

Law & Order: Criminal Intent 4x07: Magnificat

Reactions and Commentary

Watching Law & Order: Criminal Intent (because of course I am) and it's interesting how they clearly are showing how the mother being the killer in this one gets to them both more than the thought of the dad killing his family. It's a sucker punch to both of them.

The thing that makes me love them showing this so much is I know how it would have looked with B*nson and St*bler. How it would have been acted differently. It would have been a little amped up for the drama. More dramatic looks on their faces. Higher level of reaction.

Vincent and Kathryn play this thing much more subtly and I love that. It makes their characters more human. I've realized this is one of the many things I love about Bobby and Alex that puts them well over B*nson and St*bler. B&S are clearly characters in a drama while Bobby and Alex are characters in a case study of humanity.

Like, B&S work for certain people, and that's fine, but I love my characters to feel more like humans rather than characters.

----

Carver is definitely right. They need the why, the motive, for the jury to convict.

----

I really, really love how this episode highlights emotional abuse and how bad it is. Really thankful for that. And really thankful for how upset Bobby and Alex are about it. Though maybe be part of why Bobby would be upset would be the situation with his own mom, and his dad.

After this interrogation of the husband, the way Bobby reacts, the dialogue...At first I though it was odd and didn't exactly fit, but remembering just how absolutely Autistic Baby is, it entirely works.

Whoever the fuck wrote this show really knew how to write an Autistic character, and Vincent absolutely knew how to breath life into him and portray Autism on his end. Just fucking beautiful.

And Carver comes off like an asshole, but he knows he can't do anything. But he wants to. He checked to see what he could do, but found nothing. Still, I forgot how often he comes off so horrible, but he really does know the law and what he can and can't do.

[gatekeeper-watchman]

Daily Devotionals for September 14, 2024 Proverbs: God's Wisdom for Daily Living Devotional Scripture: Proverbs 24:23 (KJV): 23 These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.

Proverbs 24:23 (AMP): 23 These also are sayings of the wise. To discriminate and be partial, having respect of persons in judging, is not good.

Thought for the Day

This verse is addressed to the wise, who are told not to discriminate or show partiality when sitting in a position of judgment. In order to make a fair judgment about anything, there first must be laws that are considered the standard in a situation. The standard for Christians consists of God's laws that are recorded in the Bible. These rules and commandments were given so that people could live blessed and peaceable lives. God's laws preserve order on earth and also show man his sin and need of a Savior. Those who walk in the Spirit, fulfill the law by loving others. They reap the blessings that come from walking in God's ways.

The Bible outlines various penalties for breaking God's laws. The ultimate penalty for sinners is that they will go to hell. I want to repeat what has been included in previous verses, because of its utmost importance. The good news is that Jesus, the son of God, came to the earth and died on a cross, giving Himself as the only sacrifice that could make atonement for our sin. He was raised from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of God. As the ultimate Judge, He is not a respecter of persons. What He will do for one, He will do for another. All who come to God through Jesus will be pardoned, no matter what sin they have committed. "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Romans 5:8-10).

America's founding fathers were Christians and based much of her legal structure on the Bible's moral laws. Many laws in the U.S. are based directly on laws found in Deuteronomy. To our detriment, many sound laws have been altered or abandoned. Scripture describes times such as ours: "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time" (Daniel 7:25).

Our present-day judicial system has drifted from its original intent of protecting the innocent and convicting the wicked. Today, the law is being exploited by some people who want to use it for gain. Many are seeking outlandish settlements, that in the end all people will pay for. Through unfair settlements such as these, lawyers are the ones most rewarded. Of course, not all lawyers are greedy. Many good lawyers seek to help and serve their clients. However, due to a faulty legal system, protection of the innocent has often been over-ruled, while criminals are not justly dealt with. We need to return to Biblical principles and shape our laws accordingly, if we desire to see justice in our land. "The God of Israel said…He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God" (2 Samuel 23:3). "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25b). Prayer Devotional for the Day Dear heavenly Father, I am eternally grateful that You have forgiven me of my sins and that You paid the price for them on the cross. Lord, I now want to serve You faithfully every day. I am also thankful that You are a righteous judge and I can always commit my case to You, and You will treat me fairly in everything. Since You are no respecter of persons, You will do this for all who look to You. Lord, I pray that as a nation, we will be given righteous judges so that all people will receive justice in the courts of our land. I ask this in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.

From: Steven P. Miller, @ParkermillerQ, gatekeeperwatchman.org TM, Founder and Administrator of Gatekeeper-Watchman International Group, ‎Thursday, ‎12 ‎September, ‎2024, Jacksonville, Florida., Duval County, USA.

 X … @ParkermillerQ

https://www.facebook.com/gatekeeperwatchnanhttps://www.facebook.com/

Instagram: steven_parker_miller_1956

#GWIG, #GWIN, #GWINGO.

[patriotsnet]

What Witnesses Did The Republicans Want To Call

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-witnesses-did-the-republicans-want-to-call/

What Witnesses Did The Republicans Want To Call

Will The Bolton News Force Republicans To Call Witnesses In The Impeachment Trial

A FiveThirtyEight Chat

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf : On Sunday, The New York Times reported a bombshell from former national security adviser John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript about his time in the White House: President Trump had, in fact, wanted to withhold $391 million in assistance to Ukraine until investigations into Democrats — including Joe Biden and his son Hunter — were agreed to.

Bolton’s version of events undermined the president’s claim, which has been an important part of his defense during the impeachment process, that the decision to freeze aid to Ukraine was independent from requests that Ukraine investigate the Bidens. The reported contents of the manuscript also gave a snapshot of the kind of testimony Bolton might give if the Senate allows witnesses to be called in the trial.

The White House legal team is back in the Senate today presenting the president’s side of the case, but what should we make of Bolton’s manuscript? Does it change the calculus of the trial moving forward?

ameliatd : Well, it certainly amps up the pressure on GOP senators to call witnesses. Bolton has been the white whale of the impeachment inquiry since last fall, since he seems to have been privy to a lot of key conversations around the Ukraine aid and the investigations. The NYT reporting just underscores how important his testimony could be.

Opinionwe Want To Hear What You Think Please Submit A Letter To The Editor

Pursuing witnesses would also have a collateral benefit: It would allow Congress to strengthen its investigative authority. Last summer, for example, the House was denied access to Trump’s financial records in the Mazars case because the Supreme Court found Congress had no legitimate legislative purpose in seeking the records. An ongoing impeachment trial would supply the purpose needed for a court to grant enforcement in this case.

A criminal inquiry into Donald Trump’s conduct relating to the Jan. 6 violence may yet happen. That possibility makes it all the more essential that in this, the most critical political trial of the 21st century, the Senate attempt to discern the motivations, intentions and communications of the president in the run-up to Jan. 6 before they make the fateful decision to acquit. Congress has a solemn duty to do its utmost to defend our democracy against those who threaten its existence. This was our warning. Senators who vote to acquit ignore it at the country’s peril.

Related:

What To Watch For

The vote now precipitates individual votes on witnesses, though the timing and structure of those votes remains unclear. Jake Sherman, founder of political newsletter Punchbowl News, the development will “elongate this trial likely by weeks,” that resolutions to subpoena witnesses could face the Senate’s normal 60-vote threshold pending a “negotiation between the two sides.”

Republicans Infuriated By Vote To Call Witnesses In Impeachment Trial

The Senate voted to allow for calling witnesses in the impeachment trial on Saturday, delaying the proceedings that were expected to conclude this afternoon by an unspecified period of time. Many Republicans lashed out in response to the vote, arguing that Democrats had made a mistake by extending the trial, even though five GOP senators joined all Democrats in voting to call witnesses.

Senator Ron Johnson appeared to be upset with Senator Mitt Romney, who voted to call witnesses, in the Senate chamber immediately after the vote. Johnson later told reporters that he was not angry with Romney, but with the vote itself.

Senator Kevin Cramer argued that the House impeachment managers had “unleashed a really, really, really awful situation” by calling for witnesses. He said that Republicans had been “gracious” to Democrats, but would work to block any legislation brought by Democrats if the trial was significantly delayed.

“I’d say that is over, from now on until such time as this is over. And if they want to make this into a 10 month ordeal or a two year ordeal, it’ll be without a single piece of legislation getting passed,” Cramer said.

Senator Joni Ernst said calling witnesses was a “tool of revenge.”

“If they want to drag this out, we’ll drag it out,” she said.

Raskin Ends Democrats’ Closing Arguments: Godspeed To The Senate Of The United States

House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin concluded with a personal anecdote, recalling a conversation he had with his daughter, Hannah, who sympathized with the children of the rioters who mounted the assault on the Capitol and also may not have returned home to their families. His daughter, Raskin said, cut through the politics and legality of the situation, and saw “all the way to the humanity of the situation, the morality of the situation.”

“We must recognize and exercise these crimes against our nation and then we must take care of our people and our children, their hearts and their minds,” he said.

Raskin implored senators to vote according to the truth and questioned whether members would do more to defend the law enforcement officers who protected them January 6 and endured violence and racist slurs, beyond giving them medals.

“Is this America? Is this what we want to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren?” he said.

Raskin said that regardless of whether senators came to Washington to work on defense or agriculture, for example, their vote on impeachment is how they will be remembered.

“That might not be fair, it really might not be fair, but none of us can escape the demands of history and destiny right now,” he said.

Raskin concluded the Democrats’ closing arguments by citing Thomas Paine, for whom his late son, Thomas Raskin, was named after. 

Senate Republicans Block Witnesses In Trumps Impeachment Trial

Paul Blumenthal

The trial of President Donald Trump will be the first such trial in U.S. history to feature no witness testimony after Senate voted on Friday against hearing from any of the firsthand witnesses to the president’s conduct.

Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives on Dec. 18 for withholding congressionally approved military aid from Ukraine in order to pressure the country into investigating a domestic political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, and for refusing to cooperate with the House’s investigation into that action.

Senate Republicans blocked efforts to subpoena new witnesses. The 51-49 vote came despite a on Jan. 26 that former national security adviser John Bolton would write in a forthcoming book that Trump specifically told him that he withheld military aid from Ukraine in order to obtain an investigation into Biden and his son Hunter. Bolton had said he would appear before the Senate to testify if subpoenaed.

But Senate Republicans had already planned to acquit Trump no matter the evidence before them. They refused to hear testimony from Trump’s closest aides. Before the trial even began, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would not be an “impartial” juror.

The Senate is now set to acquit Trump in a Wednesday vote.

This revelation led Sens. Mitt Romney and Susan Collins to call for Bolton’s testimony. 

Sen Whitehouse: Congress Examining Role Of Some Gop Officials In Capitol Riot

If these shocking allegations are true, then taken together, prosecutors may be able to link rioters to GOP senators and link GOP senators to the president, a pattern that would place them all in the same, massive conspiracy. Such a plot to overthrow the U.S. government by American citizens would suggest that our democracy is facing a peril graver than any we have seen since the Civil War.

Impeachment, of course, does not require “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” For most senators watching, more proof that Trump incited a violent riot is not needed. For others, notably the 44 GOP senators who have indicated they will vote to acquit, the question of causation — phrased as whether there was indeed incitement — still offers an off-ramp.

As one of us urged with the last impeachment, given the critical importance to the country of the outcome of the trial, the Senate should not be in a hurry. Calling witnesses would likely require issuing subpoenas and then having the patience to enforce them. But given that the Democrats hold the bare majority needed to make that call, the choice is theirs.

Concerns That Calling Witnesses Would Backfire

House Democrats ultimately decided to cut a deal over witnesses because of the unpredictability of how that would turn out and fears that doing so could backfire and undermine their case, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions.

Democrats didn’t make a decision to call Herrera Beutler to testify until shortly before the proceedings began Saturday morning, sources said. The managers debated until nearly 3 a.m. ET Saturday morning about whether to call witnesses following news of the McCarthy call, including consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Managers had their eyes set on at least two possible witnesses — Herrera Beutler and Rep. John Katko of New York — who also voted to impeach, according to a source with direct knowledge of the deliberations. A spokesman for Herrera Beutler said she would have been willing to testify.

Among the variety of reasons they did not go forward, they were warned bluntly by Senate Democrats that moving forward on witnesses could stall the Senate since the Trump team could move forward with any number of motions for witnesses. Each motion would require two hours of debate. That warning was delivered Saturday to the Democratic impeachment managers by Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, who said he was conveying what Republicans had told him, according to the source along with a Coons aide.

Afghanistan Latest News As Taliban Forces Take Kabul: Live Updates

The Taliban took control of the presidential palace in Kabul Sunday after the country’s president Ashraf Ghani fled the country. Follow here for the latest news.

It shouldn’t matter what they ‘want’, a fair and FULL trial is what should be done…you dont hide witnesses in a trial…unless you are a coward crook like Trump of course… But even the majority of Republicans have SOME sanity left senatemajldr find an ounce of your integrity and do what’s right. Quit hiding information, stop being afraid, and fucking represent the American people.

Sounds bad for the GOP on Election Day. MitchCoverUp GOPTraitors RemoveTrump Midnight Mitch knows better. Lmao yea but not the witnesses Dems want lol Right, I believe that. Not. More FakeNewsMedia propaganda trying to convince POTUS supporters to back Senate doing House’s job. Not going to happen. It will be over right after opening arguments. The left blew it. Wish one of these liberal rags would just admit it.

I hope he gets a taste of his own medicine. He immobilized the House, and then alleged the Dems were playing games, not allowing Trump attend their ‘secret’ meetings, or calling on his own witnesses. I said it once and I’ll say it again his Tweets will get him imprisoned soon Get a load of that MitchMcConnell

Wrong again.

98% of Americans want to stop making up bullshit polls and numbers… What was it 93% chance of Hillary winning, maybe Newsweek staff don’t know how numbers actually work.

Write Comment

Trump’s Lawyer Suggests Pelosi Harris Be Deposed In Philadelphia

Michael van der Veen elicited laughter from senators when he suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris should be among those deposed as part of the impeachment trial, and they should have to appear in-person at his office in Philadelphia.

“None of these depositions should be done by Zoom,” he said. “We didn’t do this hearing by Zoom.”

As laughter rang out in the chamber in response to his suggestion Pelosi and Harris have their depositions taken in Pennsylvania, van der Veen grew more incredulous.

 “I don’t know how many civil lawyers are here, but that’s the way it works, folks. When you want somebody’s deposition you send a notice of deposition and they appear at the place where the notice says. That’s civil process,” he said. “I don’t know why you’re laughing.”

WATCH: Laughter breaks out in the Senate Chamber after Trump attorney Michael van der Veen insists that any impeachment trial depositions should be done in person in his office in Philadelphia

“I don’t know why you’re laughing,” he says

— CBS News February 13, 2021

What You Need To Know: Dems Gop Tussle Over Witnesses

WASHINGTON — For only the fourth time in U.S. history, the House of Representatives has started a presidential impeachment inquiry. House committees are trying to determine whether President Donald Trump violated his oath of office by asking Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden and his family and to investigate the country’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

A quick summary of the latest news and what’s to come:

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

Democrats and Republicans are already tussling over which witnesses to call for the public impeachment hearings in the coming week.

On Saturday, Republicans released a list of people they want to hear from. Among them: Biden’s son, Hunter; one of his former associates at a Ukrainian energy company; and the anonymous whistleblower.

But Republicans need the committee’s approval to summon their witnesses and Democrats are in the majority. The committee chairman, California Rep. Adam Schiff, quickly cast doubt on whether Republicans will get their way.

Without getting into specifics, Schiff said he won’t let the hearings serve as a vehicle to conduct “sham investigations” into the Bidens or the 2016 election. Nor will he let the hearings aid Trump’s “effort to threaten, intimate and retaliate against the whistleblower.”

___

The two also spoke in April, soon after Zelenskiy won election. Trump said Saturday he has no problem making details of that call public. He says he’ll probably do it Tuesday.

___

___

WHAT’S NEXT

Schumer Says There Was Only One Correct Verdict In This Trial: Guilty

Schumer: Trump’s acquittal “a vote of infamy”…12:45

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor following the vote to acquit Mr. Trump, contrasting the 45th president with the first person to hold the office, George Washington, and urging the American people to deliver justice, which he said the Senate failed to do.

“This trial was about the final acts of a president who represents the very antithesis of our first president and sought to place one man before the entire country, himself,” he said. “Let the record show, let the record show before God, history and the solemn oath we swear to the Constitution that there was only one correct verdict in this trial: guilty.”

Schumer said he prays that while justice was not done in the trial involving Mr. Trump, ” it will be carried forward by the American people who above any of us in this chamber determine the destiny of our great nation.”

  Inside Democrats’ Witness Fiasco

The impeachment managers in Donald Trump’s trial spent Friday night and Saturday morning wrestling with the question themselves.

02/13/2021 06:26 PM EST

Link Copied

When Senate Democrats stepped onto the floor on Saturday morning, they had no idea the House impeachment managers were about to drop a political grenade in their laps.

But after a brief schism that threatened to throw Donald Trump’s trial into chaos, House and Senate Democrats quickly agreed to put the pin back in. House Democratic managers and the former president’s lawyers ducked the issue of witnesses nearly as soon as it was raised, and Senate Democrats approved the turnaround.

Instead of a weeks-long drama over trial witnesses that risked upending the Senate schedule, a widely known statement from one House Republican was entered into the record. Trump’s team declined to dispute it. And amazingly, both sides decided to move on. The Senate later voted 57-43 to acquit Trump, with seven Republicans joining all Democrats in favor of conviction.

But that speedy resolution came after several hours of utter uncertainty.

Want More Articles Like This Follow Think On Instagram To Get Updates On The Week’s Most Important Political Analysis

Yet it remains unlikely that as matters now stand, House managers will convince 67 Senators to vote in favor of conviction. Fealty to Donald Trump is no doubt mostly to blame, despite Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s call this week for senators to vote their conscience. Any remaining hope for conviction lies in one final move: insisting that the Senate call witnesses like Jessica Watkins or Edward Caldwell, another , as well as witnesses higher up in the chain who may have had contact with Trump on the day of the riot, or before.

Burr Explains Surprise Guilty Vote

Senator Richard Burr voted to convict Mr. Trump on the article of impeachment, a surprise vote from the Republican from North Carolina. Burr, who is retiring in 2022, said in a statement that “the facts are clear” that the former president incited the riot on January 6.

“I do not make this decision lightly, but I believe it is necessary. By what he did and what he did not do, President Trump violated his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Burr said. “My hope is that with today’s vote, America can begin to move forward and focus on the critical issues facing our country today.”

Senators Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Patrick Toomey also voted to convict.

Pence’s Former Chief Of Staff Has Been Contacted About Providing Information Source Says

From CNN’s Jim Acosta and Alex Marquardt

A source familiar with the work of the House managers says former Vice President Mike Pence’s Chief of Staff Marc Short has been contacted about providing information about threats to Pence. 

Short has not responded, the source said. 

House managers are also seeking information from Chris Hodgson, Pence’s former head of legislative affairs. House managers believe he was also with Pence that day. 

This comes as House Managers have asked the Senate to allow them to bring forward witnesses in the impeachment trial of dormer President Trump. 

A former Pence staffer tells CNN that on Jan. 6, then National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien was traveling so President Trump was being staffed by his deputy Matt Pottinger and Gen. Keith Kellogg, Pence’s national security adviser.

Pottinger and Kellogg were at the White House on the day of the rally and riot. Kellogg was in the Oval Office with Trump and his kids as the riots were raging, including when Pence was forced to flee the Senate Chamber.

After Pence fled, Kellogg was in communication with the Vice President through the Vice President’s staff who were with him at the Capitol. Those staff were communicating back to the White House and getting that information to Kellogg, who was with the President.

“Kellogg was Pence’s national security adviser so of course they knew exactly what the circumstance was,” said a Pence staffer.

Pence has stayed quiet throughout the Senate impeachment trial.

Senate Votes To Acquit Trump In Historic Second Impeachment Trial

Senate acquits Trump in impeachment trial03:19

The Senate voted to acquit former President Donald Trump of inciting the January 6 riot at the Capitol in his second impeachment trial. Seven Republicans joined all Democrats in voting “guilty” for a majority of 57 votes — but Democrats failed to get the two-thirds majority needed to convict.

The Republicans who joined with the Democrats were: Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. 

Although he voted to acquit, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a blistering statement calling Mr. Trump “practically and morally responsible” for the riot, but he felt it was unconstitutional to convict a former office holder. “The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” McConnell said.

Mr. Trump issued a statement Saturday afternoon thanking his legal team, as well as the Republicans in the Senate who found him not guilty and GOP House members who voted against the article of impeachment last month. He did not acknowledge the riot in his statement. 

Did Republican Witnesses Help Democrats More

Later on Tuesday, the lawmakers heard from former National Security Council official Tim Morrison and US ex-special to Ukraine Kurt Volker. They had been listed as two men Republicans wanted to talk to during the public impeachment hearings.

It turns out they hurt Donald Trump’s defence as much as they helped it.

Morrison did say there was nothing illegal or concerning about Donald Trump’s 25 July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and no ill motive for moving the rough transcript of that call to a more secure government server.

He also, however, corroborated reports that US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland pressured Ukraine to open investigations that could prove politically helpful to Donald Trump – and that Sondland was in regular contact with the president.

Volker said he recalled past instances where the US had held up aid to a foreign nation and saw no evidence of bribery in this case, but he also turned out to be a character witness for Joe Biden.

Not only did he assert that there was nothing untoward about the former vice-president’s dealings with Ukraine, but he expressed dismay to learn that when Trump administration officials were calling for investigations into Ukrainian energy company Burisma, they were really looking to damage the Democratic presidential hopeful.

Biden: Tonight I Am Thinking About Those Who Bravely Stood Guard That January Day

In a statement reflecting on the acquittal of former President Trump, President Biden said that he is, “thinking about those who bravely stood guard that January day” and “those who lost their lives, all those whose lives were threatened, and all those who are still today living with terror they lived through that day.”

“While the final vote did not lead to a conviction, the substance of the charge is not in dispute,” Mr. Biden said. “Even those opposed to the conviction, like Senate Minority Leader McConnell, believe Donald Trump was guilty of a ‘disgraceful dereliction of duty’ and ‘practically and morally responsible for provoking’ the violence unleashed on the Capitol.”

Republicans Want Hunter Biden Ukraine Whistleblower As Impeachment Inquiry Witnesses

GOP releases witness list in impeachment probe

Florida Republican Rep. Ross Spano says he believes Rep. Adam Schiff will reject the GOP subpoena requests.

EXCLUSIVE:House Republicans plan to call Hunter Biden, the whistleblower and a range of other witnesses to testify in the upcoming public Trump impeachment hearings, according to a witness list obtained exclusively by Fox News.

It is unclear, at this point, how many of the Republicans’ proposed witnesses will be approved by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and the Democrats, because the newly-approved resolution governing the impeachment inquiry give the approval power to the chairman and the members of the majority.

“Americans see through this sham impeachment process, despite the Democrats’ efforts to retroactively legitimize it last week,” House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes wrote in a letter to Schiff on Saturday, referencing the impeachment rules.

“To provide transparency to your otherwise opaque and unfair process, and after consultation with Ranking Member Jim Jordan and Ranking Member Michael McCaul, the American people deserve to hear from the following witnesses in an open setting,” he continued.

At the top of Republicans’ list is former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who has emerged as a central figure in the Ukraine controversy due to his business dealings.<br data-cke-eol=”1″>

NIKKI HALEY SAYS TRUMP DOES NOT DESERVE ‘DEATH PENALTY’ IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS

Dean Makes Appeal To Senators: I Ask That You Not Look The Other Way

Congresswoman Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania laid out the managers’ case for how Mr. Trump incited the violence at the Capitol with remarks he made in the months, days and hours before the insurrection.

“Donald Trump invited them. He incited them. Then he directed them,” Dean said. 

She then played a montage of clips featuring the president speaking at rallies and on television, arguing his rhetoric led to the attack.

“The violence on January the 6th was demonstrably foreseeable,” Dean said.

The managers’ arguments were interrupted on two occasions when objections were raised about content included in the presentations by Dean and Cicilline before her. Leahy, who is presiding over the trial, said new evidence is not allowed during closing arguments.

“Donald Trump was acting as our commander in chief. He was our president. He used his office and the authority it commands to incite an attack. And when Congress and the Constitution were under attack, he abandoned his duties, violated his oath, failing to preserve, protect and defend,” Dean said.

Drawing on her own experience January 6, Dean conceded she was unaware of the extent of Mr. Trump’s involvement and just how close the rioters came to lawmakers. 

“We know what Donald Trump did. We know what he failed to do,” she said. “Though it is difficult to bear witness and face the reality of what happened in these halls, what happens if we don’t confront these facts? What happens if there is no accountability?”

[virginiaprelawland]

An In-Depth Look At The Siege On Capitol Hill

By Lima Shekib, George Mason University Class of 2020 

January 12, 2021

A violent mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters caught the world’s attention as they stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. They forcefully made their way onto the Capitol grounds as Congress convened to affirm the election of President-Elect Joe Biden [1]. Due to the chaos that ensued, members of Congress had to either escape through secret passageways or hide from the rioters. Police officers were attacked while trying to maintain peace, one of whom ultimately died of injuries sustained during these events. [2]

The nation is still reeling from the events that unfolded on Wednesday afternoon. Many are unsure what to make of the events. Was this merely a protest gone wrong or an attempted coup d'état? Here is what remains certain: regardless of the intent or severity of the protest, many criminal statutes were violated. Lawmakers, such as Mike Pence, vow that “those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” [3]

To begin, it is worth discussing one’s right to protest along with what actions deems a protest to be unlawful. After all, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants us the “...the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”[4] The key word to look at here is peaceably. As soon as a protest becomes a disturbance to the peace, it is unlawful assembly [5]. When an act of violence is threatened or occurs in the name of furthering one’s cause, the protest becomes a riot [6].

When a protest becomes violent, law enforcement has the right to act accordingly in order to maintain the peace [7], as per Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). If there is “clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the public streets…” or any other immediate threat [8], law enforcement has the right to disperse protestors and take any reasonable measure to do so. An important distinction to make is that there must be an actual threat of violence for law enforcement to step in, as per Cox v. Louisiana (1965) [9]. The mere presence of protestors is not enough to warrant a dispersal or arrest.

It can be fairly concluded that the protestors at the Capitol engaged in violent conduct to where it was justified for law enforcement to intervene. It would also be justified for prosecutors to bring out several charges against the protestors. This would not be an exhaustive list of the charges that could be levied against them but is an estimate at how much is covered under the law.

To begin, the protestors could be charged with unlawfully coming onto government property without permission. To paraphrase 18 U.S.C § 1752 [10], it is unlawful for one to knowingly enter a restricted building without the lawful authority to do so, knowingly disrupt or impede government business while trespassing, and to knowingly engage in any act of physical violence against the people or property of the restricted building. Doing so would incur a fine and imprisonment of up to 10 years, especially if the person were to carry a deadly weapon and if their actions resulted in significant bodily injury. They could also be charged for interrupting Congress that day. In accordance with 18 U.S.C § 1505, whoever obstructs the proper administration of the law "under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States" or any inquiry being held by Congress, would be fined or imprisoned for up to 5 years (8 if domestic terrorism is involved in the act) [11].

The way the protestors broke into the Capitol and its offices (ie. breaking the glass) could also carry federal charges. 18 U.S.C § 1361 protects government property from “actual or attempted depredation,” which is defined as “the act of plundering, robbing, pillaging or laying waste [12]. We saw many counts of this, such as when protestors were found breaking glass windows, tearing down American flags, putting Trump 2020 flags on presidential statues, and in one case, carrying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s podium through the Capitol. These people could also be in violation of 18 U.S.C § 2101, which punishes those who travel over state lines in order to incite, organize, promote, or to take part in a riot [13].

Those who were carrying firearms could be in violation of 18 U.S.C § 930, which states that those knowingly carrying firearms or dangerous weapons in a federal facility will be punished under the law [14]. They could also be charged in accordance with 18 U.S.C § 231, which prohibits people from transporting or manufacturing any firearm or explosive device to be used for furthering a civil disorder [15]. This is especially true of the man who was found putting two pipe bombs onto the Capitol grounds, for whom the Federal Bureau of Investigation currently has a $50,000 reward [16]. He could also be found in violation of 41 CFR § 102-74.435, which explicitly forbids people from entering federal property with explosive devices [17].

The protestors that attacked police officers at the scene could also be charged with assaulting and impeding law enforcement. According to 18 U.S.C § 111, those who assault or impede a police officer that is doing his/her official duty is subject to a maximum of 8 years [18]. These acts would also be in violation against 18 U.S.C § 231 section A, as they impeded on law enforcement during a civil disorder [19]. In this case, many officers sustained injuries and one died of the injuries sustained during the protests. Under 18 U.S.C § 111, those responsible could be imprisoned for up to 20 years [20].

Finally, the protestors could be charged with insurrection and sedition according to the definition laid out by 18 U.S.C Chapter 115. 18 U.S.C § 2383 prohibits the act of “...incit[ing],...assist[ing], or engag[ing] in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof [21]”. One could argue that storming the Capitol building and driving Congress out falls within this charge. If someone were to take it a notch further by attempting to overthrow, oppose the authority of, or hinder the duties of the U.S government, they would fall within the realm of seditious conspiracy, as defined by 18 U.S.C § 2384 [22]. While this is a serious accusation to make, the attempt to prevent Congress from affirming President-Elect Joe Biden could fall within this definition of sedition.

Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum, the events that took place on Wednesday should not be taken lightly. Many agree that they were inappropriate at the very least, while some say that it was one of the United States’ ugliest days. As more of the protestors are identified and arrested, it is only a matter of time before they are brought to justice.

______________________________________________________________

Lima Shekib is a recent graduate from George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. She majored in Criminology, minored in both Psychology and Forensic Psychology, and pursued a concentration in Homeland Security. While pursuing intelligence analysis as a career path, she holds a passion for writing and learning more about law.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Fisher, M., Flynn, M., Contrera, J., & Leonnig, C. D. (2021, January 07). The four-hour insurrection. Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2021/politics/trump-insurrection-capitol/

[2] LeBlanc, P., & Perez, E. (2021, January 08). US Capitol Police confirm death of officer after pro-Trump riot. Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/capitol-police-officer-killed/index.html

[3] Fisher, M., Flynn, M., Contrera, J., & Leonnig, C. D. (2021, January 07). The four-hour insurrection. Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2021/politics/trump-insurrection-capitol/

[4] U.S. Const. amend. I.

[5] Unlawful assembly. (n.d.). Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unlawful_assembly

[6] Riot. (n.d.). Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/riot

[7] E.A. Gjelten, A. (2020, June 23). What Can the Police Arrest You for at a Protest? Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/what-can-the-police-arrest-you-for-at-a-protest.html

[8] 310 U.S. 296

[9] 379 U.S. 536

[10] Restricted Buildings or Grounds, 18 U.S.C § 1752

[11] Obstruction of Proceedings before Departments, Agencies, and Committees, 18 U.S.C § 1505

[12] Destruction of Government Property, 18 U.S.C § 1361

[13] Riots, 18 U.S.C § 2101

[14] Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities, 18 U.S.C § 930

[15] Civil Disorders, 18 U.S.C § 231

[16] Szymanowski, G., & Gordine, E. (2021, January 08). US Capitol siege: Will rioters face legal action? Retrieved January 09, 2021, from https://www.dw.com/en/us-capitol-siege-will-rioters-face-legal-action/a-56168507

[17] What is the policy concerning explosives on Federal property? 41 CFR § 102-74.435

[18] Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees, 18 U.S.C § 111

[19] Civil Disorders, 18 U.S.C § 231

[20] Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees, 18 U.S.C § 111

[21] Rebellion or insurrection, 18 U.S.C § 2383

[22] Seditious conspiracy, 18 U.S.C § 2384

Photo Credit: Tyler Merbler