Speaking on KTLA this Monday, professor emeritus and director for the Center of First Amendment Studies at Cal State University at Long Beach, Dr. Craig R. Smith, said that when it comes to potential charges of inciting a riot, Donald Trump and others are still not off the hook.
According to Smith, Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others who spoke at the "Stop the Steal" rally on Jan. 6 before the violence took place "certainly can" be prosecuted "under federal statutes which involve insurrection."
"But also, the District of Columbia has a statute on incitement and [Trump, Giuliani, and Donald Trump Jr.] could be indicted by [D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine] for incitement to riot or incitement of insurrection, and there's a 5-year statute of limitations so the Attorney General of the District of Columbia has a very long time to put his case together if he wants to go down that road," Smith said.
Watch the full interview below:
Prince Harry's appearance at the High Court in London on Tuesday was a world away from the gentle questioning of a friendly interviewer on prime-time television.
Instead, King Charles III's younger son was up against lawyer Andrew Green, King's Counsel, a courteous but relentless inquisitor representing British tabloid publishers Mirror Group Newspapers.
Harry and his American wife Meghan have made much of speaking their truth about their struggles inside the royal family since they left for the United States in early 2020.
But in the witness box of court 15 of the Rolls Building, a modern annex to the Gothic halls of the Royal Courts of Justice, the goal was hard facts to support his claim of illegal practices.
"I swear by almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," Harry swore on the Bible.
Harry's testimony is the first by a senior royal to be given in court since the 1890s. His lawyer, David Sherborne, was keen to ensure the court had the correct form of address.
He was first referred to as "Your Royal Highness" but Harry, dressed in a dark business suit, said he preferred "Prince Harry".
Then Green stepped up to cross-examine him on his written witness statement but not before apologizing on behalf of MGN for one case of unlawful activity.
"MGN unreservedly apologizes to you for that, it should never have happened and it will never happen again," he said.
The apology is the only one MGN has made. It disputes Harry's claim that its newspapers engaged in illegal information-gathering, including phone hacking, for stories about the prince.
Green went over details, questioning Harry on the substance of his allegations that about 140 articles published by MGN titles between 1996 and 2010 contained information gleaned by unlawful methods.
Thirty-three articles have been selected for consideration at the trial.
Had Harry read them? How did he know the information was obtained illegally? he asked.
Harry wasn't sure as they dated back 20 years. Possibly, he said. Maybe, he added, as he explained how he was relentlessly targeted from a young age.
"I've experienced hostility from the press since I was born," he told the court.
It had made him paranoid and cost him close friends and relationships.
"Your circle starts to shrink," he said.
Green asked Harry to explain what he meant in his written testimony that some journalists had "blood on their hands".
"Some of the editors and journalists that are responsible for causing a lot of pain, upset and in some cases, speaking personally, death," he said, referring to his mother, Princess Diana.
She was killed in a 1997 car crash in Paris, while being pursued by paparazzi.
But Harry did not name any specific journalist, explaining that the phrase was aimed "more broadly towards the press".
Questioned about an article from 2002 that claimed he smoked cannabis, Harry took aim at his own family for cooperating with the newspaper.
Green suggested it was legitimately in the public interest, as Harry was the son of the future king and in the line of succession.
There was a difference "between public interest and what interests the public", the prince replied.
"Every element of it was distressing," he said.
© 2023 AFP
Republicans in Georgia are trying to appoint a man who has aggressively challenged local residents' eligibility to vote to the election board of a key Democratic voter stronghold.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Republicans are nominating Jason Frazier to sit on the Fulton County elections board, which has the power to block registered voters from participating in elections if it finds reasons to suspect they are not properly registered.
Frazier's nomination is notable, writes the AJC, because he is a "rampant vote challenger" who has challenged the eligibility of nearly 10,000 Fulton County residents.
The AJC also notes that Frazier has not ultimately been very successful in this endeavor, as "few of Frazier’s scattershot voter challenges have been proved," although he has nonetheless made life inconvenient for eligible voters who "have had to defend their right to vote in hearings before the county election board."
READ MORE: 'Extremely poor judgment': GOP Oregon House minority leader apologizes after son gives a Nazi salute
Wayne Golosov, one of the thousands of Fulton County voters targeted by Frazier, told the AJC that he didn't believe this was a good-faith nomination by Republicans.
“He’s not doing this out of goodwill for the citizens of the county," he told the AJC. "There’s something else underlying there, and I believe it goes back to the 2020 election... I don’t think Mr. Frazier is doing the right thing for the voters of Fulton County.”
A U.S. Supreme Court challenge to Harvard University's affirmative action program is based in part on flawed analysis by a Holocaust denier who publishes neo-Nazi content on his personal website, according to a report.
The six right-wing justices in the majority are widely expected to back the challenge, which draws heavily from a 2012 article by Ron Unz arguing that Jewish applicants were given preferential treatment at Ivy League schools, and rule against the longstanding practice using race as a factor in evaluating students, reported The Guardian.
“The arguments he used about Jews being given favorable admission to Ivy League schools were already being promoted by antisemites and white supremacists to attack affirmative action as discriminating against whites,” said Marilyn Mayo, senior research fellow at the ADL’s Center on Extremism.
The lawsuit filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) cites the Unz article, The Myth of American Meritocracy, to argue Harvard systematically discriminated against Asian undergraduate candidates by applying a quota system, and that article published in his American Conservative magazine claims Jewish university presidents were biased "in favor of less-qualified Jewish applicants."
Unz, who is ethnically Jewish and also a Harvard graduate, now carries columns from avowed neo-Nazis and other extremists on his Unz Review website and went on Iranian television to complain about "Holocaust worship" and downplayed the number of Jewish people murdered by the Nazi regime.
The SFFA lawsuit doesn't mention his controversial record, statistical experts and mathematicians have criticized the methodology Unz used to support his 2012 article, such as concluding the proportion Jewish participants in the U.S. Math Olympiad team had dropped drastically by counting the number of team members with Jewish-sounding last names.
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences
For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.
