Melania Trump cancels appearance at Pennsylvania rally due to 'lingering cough'
October 20, 2020
For customer support issues contact
support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to
corrections@rawstory.com.
Stories Chosen For You
'It’s like a classic mob case — they're going to get some of these people to flip': Ex-Trump aide
March 29, 2023
Former Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor predicted Wednesday that former employees of the White House likely want to do whatever they can to ensure they'll still have a career in politics. Thus, he told MSNBC, he doesn't anticipate they're going to be willing to give up their careers for Donald Trump.
Mike Pence was told Tuesday that he must testify before special counsel Jack Smith's grand jury dealing with the Jan. 6 attack and the classified documents scandal. He's not the only Trump associate being forced to come forward, however.
Host Nicolle Wallace cited a list of Republican officials that no longer have any kind of privilege that bars them from testifying to the grand jury. They're officials from the highest levels of the White House to Ken Cuccinelli at the Department of Homeland Security.
Washington Post reporter and MSNBC contributor Jackie Alemany said that she believes Mark Meadows will actually be more helpful to the special counsel than Mike Pence, simply because Meadows was the one who was in on all the meetings, not just the pressure campaign against Pence. Meadows, for example, also flew down to Georgia, demanding to be let into the room where votes were being counted.
IN OTHER NEWS: Trump busted by CNN fact checker for telling a 'story that cannot possibly be true'
Meadows joins Robert O'Brien, Stephen Miller, Dan Scavino, Nick Luna and John McEntee who must also testify.
"It seems like one of the pieces that legal analysts thought needed to be sort of a loop that needed to be closed or part of the case against Trump in terms of the criminality that the congressional probe was able to establish and prove was his state of mind and his intent," said Wallace.
Taylor agreed.
"You know, look, put Jan. 6 aside, you know, any time there would be a meeting in the Oval Office with the president, these were the types of players who would be there and hear Donald Trump express his grievances, propose courses of action and really get insight into his intent," said Taylor. "I was there on many occasions when he described things that he wanted to do that appeared illegal in nature. These witnesses could provide similar insight into and around Jan. 6. What his state of mind was, his intent was in acting or rather not acting on that day, and someone like Cassidy Hutchinson just scratches the surface. It's still phenomenal that testimony was made available. That she provided insight, just that little crack of the door into what she might have seen or heard shows that these individuals really likely have a great degree of testimony to provide about the events that transpired that day that we still don't know."
RELATED: Lauren Boebert shot down by witness as she obsesses over 'public urination' in Washington, D.C.
He went on to describe how Trump loyalists are "using executive privilege like a get-out-of-jail-free card."
"Whether it was Steve Bannon, or Peter Navarro, or Mark Meadows, that's not why executive privilege exists, Nicolle, it exists to protect branches of government from each other, to protect the executive branch from infringement from the others," Taylor explained. "It doesn't shield government officials from being held accountable for acts of legality."
The latest development with Pence, however, is what Taylor found to be the biggest impact over the course of the investigation.
"I don't know what Pence means about he's going to review this with his counsel. This is an order to cooperate," he said, citing Pence trying to save face on Newsmax on Tuesday. "The last thing I'd say, is you have to know where this is coming from. These individuals aren't reaching these conclusions independently. This comes from Donald Trump himself. He also viewed the presidency as insulation from the justice system. I mean, this is the same person who said when someone is president, the authority is total. And when he found out that wasn't true, he really wanted to dismantle the justice system. He asked aides to put together bills to send to Capitol Hill to dismantle the courts, and his subordinate have followed that similar mentality toward the Justice Department."
See the full discussion below or at the link here.
'It’s like a classic mob case — they’re going to get some of these people to flip': Ex-Trump aide www.youtube.com
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Citing ‘crony capitalism,’ Iowa Supreme Court blasts late-night legislative logrolling
March 29, 2023
In a decision that appears to be highly critical of Iowa legislators, the Iowa Supreme Court has sided with electric transmission companies challenging a law that restricts competition among utilities.
Calling the legislation “quintessentially crony capitalism,” the court described the bill as a “protectionist” maneuver that had to be approved in the dark of night so that lawmakers would remain unaware of what they were voting on.
The central issue in the case is the Iowa Legislature’s practice of “logrolling” — deliberately packaging together unrelated and relatively unpopular pieces of legislation to ensure that a majority of lawmakers will support something in the bill and give the entire package their approval.
The Iowa Constitution prohibits logrolling by requiring that “every act” passed by lawmakers “shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith.”
The case that went before the Iowa Supreme Court involves legislation from 2020 that blocks potential competitors in the electric-transmission market from bidding against Iowa operators on any future projects. The legislation granted “incumbent” Iowa electric providers a right of first refusal, or ROFR, on future projects, essentially eliminating competitive bidding on the projects.
As a stand-alone bill, the ROFR legislation repeatedly failed to win approval at the Iowa Statehouse, but it was enacted in the final hours of the 2020 legislative session after it was buried within a 50-page financial appropriations bill that dealt with a variety of issues unrelated to electric transmission.
The companies LS Power Midcontinent and Southwest Transmission sued the state and the Iowa Utilities Board, arguing the manner in which lawmakers approved the bill violated the single-subject provision of the Iowa Constitution.
The district court granted the state’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because there were, as of then, no approved projects to upgrade Iowa’s electric grid – and so no harm could be shown.
That decision was taken up by the Iowa Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal, stating that the plaintiffs “swung before the pitch” and could not show any harm caused by the legislation.
The Iowa Supreme Court then granted the plaintiffs’ request for review.
Last week, the justices concluded the district court had erred in dismissing the case. In referencing the appeals court’s baseball analogy, the justices said a “more fitting baseball analogy is that the enactment of (the law) took the plaintiffs off the ballfield before the game began.”
In describing the effects of the Iowa legislation, the court quoted from a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision that dealt with a similar legislation on electric transmission: “Imagine if Texas — a state that prides itself on promoting free enterprise — passed a law saying that only those with existing oil wells in the state could drill new wells. It would be hard to believe.” And yet, the U.S. Court of Appeals stated, “Texas recently enacted such a ban on new entrants in the building of transmission lines that are part of multistate electricity grids.”
Bill would impose ‘higher costs on Iowans’
In addition to addressing the substance of the ROFR bill, the Iowa Supreme Court had harsh words for the manner in which lawmakers approved it.
The ROFR provision was not germane to the numerous unrelated subjects in the appropriations bill where it was packaged, the court pointed out.
“Importantly,” the court added, “legislators were unsure of what they were voting on. Senators had not seen the ROFR until 1:33 a.m. on the final day of the legislative session. After the ROFR was introduced, the Senate caucused for approximately one hour, and then debate began. The ROFR’s sponsor could not produce a bill history, nor could he accurately describe the ROFR’s demise in the House earlier in the term.”
The court also noted that the ROFR had not been approved by a subcommittee earlier in the session, and “the bill’s sponsor falsely represented the provision as allowing competitive bidding and price-matching.”
The court agreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that the ROFR lacked the votes to pass as a stand-alone measure and represented a textbook example of logrolling, in violation of the single-subject requirement of the Iowa Constitution.
“We are not surprised the ROFR lacked enough votes to pass without logrolling,” the court stated in its opinion. “The provision is quintessentially crony capitalism. This rent-seeking, protectionist legislation is anticompetitive. Common sense tells us that competitive bidding will lower the cost of upgrading Iowa’s electric grid and that eliminating competition will enable the incumbent to command higher prices for both construction and maintenance. Ultimately, the ROFR will impose higher costs on Iowans.”
While stating that its role “is not to second-guess policy choices of the elected branches or regulators,” the court said it still is obligated to determine “whether constitutional lines were crossed” in the enactment of the legislation.
“We are persuaded that (the plaintiffs are) entitled to a temporary injunction that stays enforcement of the ROFR statute pending final resolution of its constitutional claims,” the court concluded, vacating the judgment of the Iowa Court of Appeals and reversing the judgment of the district court.
The matter has now been remanded to district court to decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. The justices also granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction staying the enforcement of the new law pending resolution of the case.
As part of its decision, the Supreme Court also pointed out that it had recently rejected a logrolling claim in a case that challenged legislation establishing a 24-hour waiting period for abortions in Iowa.
In that matter, the justices said, both chambers of the Iowa Legislature had debated the 24-hour waiting period at length, and it was clear the contents and the potential effect of the bill were known to all legislators when they voted.
Also, both sections of the final bill that incorporated the waiting-period language pertained to the government regulation of medical procedures, and no lawmakers who voted in favor of the bill later argued that they would have voted against the waiting-period as a piece of stand-alone legislation.
Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and Twitter.
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Pence testimony brings special counsel’s case against Trump to the 1-yard line: Legal expert
March 29, 2023
Former Vice President Mike Pence’s potential testimony in the special counsel investigation over alleged interference in the 2020 election figures to be a game-changer, a former federal prosecutor said Wednesday.
Pence on Tuesday was ordered by a federal judge to testify before a grand jury in the Justice Department’s investigation into former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results. The investigation is being led by special counsel Jack Smith.
The former vice president hasn’t decided whether to appeal Tuesday’s ruling but indicated on Wednesday that he would follow the law.
“We'll obey the law,” Pence told reporters Wednesday.
IN OTHER NEWS: CNN’s Van Jones bursts out laughing over Trump’s latest ‘witch hunt’ rant
“Right now, we're evaluating what the proper course is moving forward."
Appearing on MSNBC’s Deadline White House with Nicolle Wallace, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Littman said Pence’s potential testimony over one-on-one conversations with the former president fills in an important gap with “overwhelming evidence” of Trump attempting to interfere with the certification of the election.
“What don't we know, what hasn't the grand jury heard so far, the one-on-one conversations where Trump in vulgar and vitriolic terms just totally eviscerates Pence, says he made a mistake, says all kinds of things, and that is overwhelming evidence of wanting him not to attempt to unconstitutionally gum up the works for the proceeding itself January 6,” Littman said.
“That almost in and of itself, brings him … to the one yard line on the January 6 stuff.”
Watch video below or at this link.
Mike Pence testimony on chats with Trump brings Jack Smith’s case to the 1-yard line: Legal expert www.youtube.com
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}