NEW YORK — Lawyers representing porn star Stormy Daniels posted a court ruling online indicating that President Donald Trump has been ordered to pay $43,000 in legal fees to their client, who has claimed in great detail that she had an affair with Trump in 2006 after his son Barron was born. “Yep, another win!” Daniels tweeted in response to her lawyers’ tweet celebrating the payday. The ruling handed down Monday seems to award Daniels for lingering legal fees tied to a 2016 payoff agreement involving Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen, Trump and Daniels. Trump denied Daniels’ claim of a conse...
Justice Sotomayor slams 'highly questionable' reversal in qualified immunity case involving Louisiana cops
U.S. Supreme Court Assistant Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently weighed in on the Fifth Circuit's reversal in a qualified immunity case involving Louisiana police officers who brutally assaulted a man lying face down on the ground.
According to Law & Crime, Sotomayor described the ruling on the case, titled Tucker v. City of Shreveport, as "highly questionable" as she expressed support for Obama-appointed Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson's dissent.
“While this case does not meet our traditional criteria for certiorari, I write to note that the Fifth Circuit’s reversal of the District Court’s detailed order denying qualified immunity appears highly questionable for the reasons set forth by Judge Higginson’s thorough dissenting opinion,” Sotomayor concluded.
According to Tucker v. City of Shreveport, when Gregory Tucker was initially pulled over for broken tail light and license plate light, he "was violently pulled to the ground, causing his face to bleed as it smacked against the concrete. He suffered numerous injuries as a result."
While apprehended face down and not resisting, the officers “'repeatedly' punched and kicked, 'ostensibly in order to gain control of his hands and complete the arrest,'” according to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The court's assessment also indicated that the officers "'each punched Tucker at least once, and William McIntire kicked him at least three times' as Tucker was 'kicking his legs while on the ground and was not laying still in order to allow himself to be handcuffed.'”
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Erny Foote insisted that the minor offense Tucker was pulled over for did not warrant the type of behavior displayed by the officers. She also determined that the officers' actions were unjustifiable Fourth Amendment violations.
“The misdemeanor and traffic violations of which he was suspected did not of themselves warrant a particularly high degree of force,” Foote wrote. “Once he landed on the ground, four officers surrounded him and were able to handcuff him in less than a minute; the fact that there were four officers and that Tucker was on the ground where he had less room to maneuver suggests a reduced threat to officer safety.”
The court stated:
It is undisputed that as a result of Defendant Officers’ actions, Tucker cut his forehead and strained his left shoulder. While these injuries are unlikely to be sufficiently severe if the takedown and subsequent blows were reasonable, if the police maneuvers selected were unreasonable, then these injuries may be of constitutional significance. Moreover, one can clearly hear on the video a change in the tone of Tucker’s voice; the sound is that of a man in significant pain. Tucker has also testified that he had a black eye for several days after the incident, a headache, and a “sprung” knee. More significantly, he has testified to psychological damage, including extreme fear of the police that affects his ability to navigate the world. Because the Court must make inferences in Tucker’s favor on summary judgment, the Court finds that he has established a constitutional injury.
However, Foote's assessment was overruled by the Fifth Circuit. “It is only with respect to the legal significance of those facts where we ultimately part ways with the district court,” said Circuit Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt wrote, who was appointed by Former President George W. Bush.
The judge wrote, “Considering the record in this manner, we find the district court erred in concluding that the conduct of Officers McIntire and Cisco—in taking Tucker to the ground—was objectively unreasonable in light of pertinent clearly established law in November 2016."
The House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol riot has apparently lost patience with former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.
On Tuesday afternoon, the committee released a statement slamming Meadows for backing out of cooperating with them despite writing publicly in his new book about former President Donald Trump's response to the riots.
"Mark Meadows has informed the Select Committee that he does not intend to cooperate further despite his apparent willingness to provide details about the January 6th attack, including conversations with President Trump, in the book he is now promoting and selling," the committee said. "The Select Committee has numerous questions for Mr. Meadows about records he has turned over to the Committee with no claim of privilege, which include real-time communications with many individuals as the events of January 6th unfolded."
The committee then warned Meadows of severe consequences should he remain defiant.
"Tomorrow’s deposition will go forward as planned," the committee said. "If indeed Mr. Meadows refuses to appear, the Select Committee will be left no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution.
Polling and messaging-meister Kellyanne Conway reportedly believed that President Donald Trump may have lost the election and that the numbers displayed on election night were consistent with reality. It led former chief of staff Mark Meadows to rage about her in his new book about his time in the White House.
As Trump assembled aides in the Oval Office, all he wanted to talk about was that it appeared he was losing the election, even in Georgia.
Meadows recalled that Conway suggested putting out a statement saying something about "making sure all votes were counted."
Meadows explained that she made the suggestion while noting "whether the numbers we were seeing were even plausible. Yes, she said. In fact, they were quite plausible. President Trump was losing, and she didn’t seem all that broken up about it."
“How can we be losing Georgia?” Meadows recalled Trump asking, "seeming exasperated by the notion that the state was even up for grabs. 'We were supposed to win Georgia by a landslide.' He was right."
Like with the 2016 polls, the new voters brought into the pool by registration efforts likely weren't shown in the 2020 election polling. At the same time, 2020 polls had a margin of error and a 2.5 percent off of the actual election vote, reported The Scientific American. It isn't even clear if Trump's campaign polled Georgia in the month leading into the election or if they focused on traditional swing states.
Meadows wrote in his book that they were calculating excitement in Georgia based on a rally Trump held in Rome, Georgia, "a small city in the foothills." There were more than 30,000 people at the rally. But Rome, Georgia's proximity to Alabama, Atlanta and Chattanooga, Tennessee likely brought supporters from multiple states to see Trump. Rallies don't predict the voting outcome just like yard signs don't predict who will win an election.
"In fact, our support in the state was so strong that we hadn’t even thought to schedule a rally there until a few days before it actually happened," wrote Meadows, making it clear the campaign underestimated the impact new voters would have in the state. The rally was Nov. 1, the election was Nov. 3 and early voting had been going on for weeks. The vote that year set an all-time record of participation that passed even the 2008 election.
Meadows new book is on sale now.