conclusion: Donald J. Trump should be in jail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR-bhPzQYUE
<iframe width="1335" height="751" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lR-bhPzQYUE" title="Jack Smith Deposition" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Transcript of deposition
Bruce Rosen - a former journalist , and now excellent media lawyer is my colleague on the Editorial Board of the New Jersey Law Journal.. He has posted on the Media Law Resource Center website a very readable and appealing memoir of his long, diverse, unfinished career.
When did you know you wanted to be a lawyer?
Well, I was always and still am an arguer, and in high school in central New Jersey I was an anti-Vietnam War activist and editor of our own underground newspaper called “Conscience.” In 1970-71 there was a TV show called “Storefront Lawyers,” that sort of inspired me further to law, but I didn’t really have the resources to go right after college but had had a paid internship with the Woodbridge (NJ) News Tribune while in college and also covered DC for them as a stringer while at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service – including covering Nixon’s resignation. I left school and went directly to work there. Law had to wait. Later, I was working for the Bergen Record covering government and politics and rock music on the side.
Bruce Springsteen at the Capitol Theatre,
Passaic where I interviewed him in 1978.
But I really got the bug to go to law school while covering the Abscam trials in Brooklyn in 1980-81, especially the trial of U.S. Sen. Harrison Williams, where I was second guessing the defense lawyers and thought, “well I could do that!” Around that time, The Record started a tuition reimbursement program that paid for most of my law school. I went to school at night and covered the courts during the day. I was married with two small kids (wasn’t easy for any of us).
How did you get interested in media law? What was your first job?
My first real law job was clerking for the late U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin in Newark in 1985. I had profiled him as a stringer for the National Law Journal and he knew I was in my last year of night classes at Seton Hall Law School and asked me if I’d be interested in doing a temporary clerkship so I could help him write a major opinion. It turned out to be the habeas corpus decision that freed Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, the middleweight boxer convicted twice for a triple murder, and later a film starring Denzel Washington.
I was always interested in media law. As a federal clerk, I finagled an interview with Floyd Abrams at Cahill Gordon, but he told me they hadn’t hired anyone from Seton Hall before, and I guess they already had a stable of ex-reporters. I briefly went back to The Record but soon left to take over editing the New Jersey Law Journal when Steve Brill bought it, and I became executive editor for all of the American Lawyer media legal papers.
After five years, Steve’s attention moved to Court TV and I left to join Lowenstein Sandler, where one of the lawyers was friends with the late Doug Jacobs who led litigation at CBS. Doug gave us the case of a New Jersey lawyer who sued over allegations he had hired a runner for his personal injury practice (and who candidly discussed fees without asking about the injury to a hatcam). The case settled for a half-apology. Doug also made sure that I started writing the N.J. chapter for the MLRC’s 50-State Survey.
***** Keep Reading for lots more interesting stuff.
The final illness and death of Pope Francis this past spring reintroduced a number of questions that have arisen during modern papacies. Specifically, these often deal with a pope’s ability to carry on his ministry in the face of advanced age and sickness. But such concerns are not limited to the pope. Perhaps a more useful area of exploration, especially for those in their 50s, 60s and beyond, is considering our own thoughts and plans for aging.
How do you view your own aging process and what you want to do with your life as you grow older?
There is no one template for aging. Aging is marked by diversity, not uniformity. Getting older has challenges, but it also has opportunities. Unlike the pope, whose circumstances are restricted by his office, most of us have the freedom to consider how we might want to spend our time as we progress from late middle age to old age.
That freedom is relative and, for many, a privilege that comes because of financial security and good health. For those who are poor, who have chronic or life-limiting illnesses or have extraordinary family demands, getting older may mean just trying to face each day.
At the beginning of the Spiritual Exercises, Ignatius’ guide for retreatants seeking to find God’s will for them and conform their lives to that will, he puts forth a brief description as a basis for what follows. A central point of this “Principle and Foundation” is that the events of our lives, good and bad, long life or short, are means to the end of finding God and achieving our destiny of eternal life in love with the God who created us. To attain this end for which we have been created, Ignatius advises: “on our part we ought not to seek health rather than sickness, wealth rather than poverty, honor rather than dishonor, a long life rather than a short one…we ought to desire and choose only that which is more conducive to the end for which we are created.”
Individuals are now routinely living into their 80s and beyond, and it is increasingly common to meet people who are in their 90s or even over 100 years old. It appears that God is providing many with “a long life rather than short one” (via the work of public hygiene, better nutrition and more effective treatments for illnesses). This raises the question of what God might be offering us with these added years: How are we to use these years in ways that are “more conducive to the end for which we were created”?
Many Americans wisely spend a lot of time doing financial planning and considering various options for their future as they grow older. But when you are planning for your future, have you ever considered a spiritual retirement plan? In line with Ignatius, might it be that these extended years are God’s gift, calling you to a future with new possibilities to deepen your relationship and encounter God in ways that may not have been possible in the busyness of the earlier portions of your life?
My suggestion is that prudent planning for aging requires a spiritual dimension—and attending to these added years as a gift to come closer to God. We can choose to ignore our aging and simply try to stay put in our jobs and habits. This could be a result of fearing change, having mistaken ideas about our irreplaceability or avoiding the future. We may only focus on the aspects of aging that are presented favorably in the media: tennis, golf, travel and a life of leisure and personal enjoyment. We may ignore that, inevitably, aging will end and bring us before God.
There is nothing wrong with tennis, golf, travel and leisure. But what might God be offering you to discover rather than lots of activities and recreation?
The United States Supreme Court, in a rare display of spine in the face of the flaccid Prsident of the united States has blocked the deployment of federalized naitional guardsman to Illiois where the Governor has opposed such deployment.
It is the rare case in which President, in his second term, has been stymied byt the odinarily compliant Supreme Court of the United States. The key language in Trump v. Illinois is:
We conclude that the term “regular forces” in [10 U.S.C.] §12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States military. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be “unable” with the regular military “to execute the laws of the United States.” Because the statute requires an assessment of the military’s ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from “execut[ing] the laws” “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.” 18 U. S. C. §1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under §12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be “unable” with those forces to perform that function.
Georgetown Professor martin lederman seems to have persuaded a majority othe U.S. Supre our to leave e
As the Solicitor General acknowledges (App. 18), in ora tech reinstalled Windowsder to obtain the requested stay the Applicants must, at a minimum, demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Those merits turn largely on the proper meaning of the phrase “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” in 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3)—the statutory precondition the President invoked as the basis for his order “call[ing] into Federal service members and units of the National Guard … in such numbers as he considers necessary to … execute those laws” in Illinois. The parties sharply contest the meaning of the word “unable” in § 12406(3) and whether the proper test was satisfied on the facts of this case. The principal function of this amicus brief, by contrast, is to explain why it is unnecessary for the Court to address those questions because the applicants are not likely to succeed on the merits for an independent reason—namely, that both the President and the Solicitor General have mistakenly assumed that the term “the regular forces” in § 12406(3) refers
September 28, 1965, 30 F.R. 12319 Exec. Order 11246
Under and by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows:
Section 101. It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all qualified persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency. The policy of equal opportunity applies to every aspect of Federal employment policy and practice.
As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
Yet today, roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical and influential institutions of American society, including the Federal Government, major corporations, financial institutions, the medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies, and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) that can violate the civil-rights laws of this Nation.
Illegal DEI and DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity, as they deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system. Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.
Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador at sixteen in 2012. For many years he lived and worked in Maryland He was ultimately granted asylum by an immigration judge based on his credible fear of persecution by a gang. He established that his “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
An extraordinary saga followed, in which he was deported to a jail in El Salvador by the Department of Homeland Security. The facts are recited by United States District Judge Paula Xinis.
ABREGO GARCIA, Petitioner, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Respondents. * * * * * *** Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-02780-PX DMD
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Paula Xinis, D.J., District of Maryland
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia (“Abrego Garcia”) petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus to release him from the custody of Respondents, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Kristi Noem, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Director Todd Lyons, ICE Baltimore Field Office Director Nikita Baker, and Attorney General Pamela Bondi. ECF No. 1.
Since Abrego Garcia’s return from wrongful detention in El Salvador, he has been re-detained, again without lawful authority. For this reason, the Court will GRANT Abrego Garcia’s Petition for immediate release from ICE custody.
****
The Court orders Respondents to release Abrego Garcia from ICE custody immediately. Thereafter, he will receive instruction from the United States Pretrial Services Office as to installation on the release conditions previously imposed in his criminal case.17
There was no surprise in the unjust verdict delivered by a Chinese court, which found Catholic philanthropist and media executive Jimmy Lai guilty of collusion with foreigners to endanger national security and conspiracy to publish seditious articles. Just a reminder of the evil at work in the world.
Lai's pro-democracy labors really are a threat to the Chinese regime which, like most totalitarian regimes, conflated the nation with itself. Lai did not threaten China: He threatened the tyrants who run the country. His show trial was not designed by the corrupt leaders to deliver justice. It was designed to intimidate others.
The power brokers in Beijing have violated all they promised Hong Kong residents in order to secure the colony's return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.
The Chinese government is not only afraid of Lai's politics. His Catholic faith rightly worried them. "Of course, Jimmy Lai's persecution is in part political. He is an outspoken proponent of democracy and human rights," said Stephen Schneck, commissioner and former chair, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, or USCIRF, in an email interview. "Importantly, though, among those rights is his championing of religious freedom. Moreover, Lai roots his defense of democracy and rights in his faith. It must also be noted that Lai has intentionally been denied the Holy Eucharist during his detention. Clearly, his imprisonment by the Chinese regime reflects a denial of religious freedom."
New Rules Are Nation’s Most Comprehensive Disparate Impact Liability Regulations
The rules make clear the legal standard for disparate impact liability under the
State Law Against Discrimination [LAD], Disparate impact discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral practice or policy of a covered entity unlawfully results in a disproportionately negative effect based on a protected characteristic even when there is no intent to discriminate.
Office of the Attorney General
– Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General
Division on Civil Rights
– Yolanda N. Melville, Director
TRENTON – Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) announced today that DCR has adopted landmark new rules that codify the prohibition against disparate impact discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), the oldest and strongest state civil rights law in the country.
The rules announced today, which address disparate impact discrimination in employment, housing, places of public accommodation, financial lending, and contracting, are the most comprehensive state-level disparate impact regulations in the country. The rules cement critical state-law civil rights protections just as the Trump Administration has moved to reverse key protections against disparate impact discrimination at the federal level.
The rules make clear the legal standard for disparate impact liability under the LAD, as well as the burdens of proof in disparate impact discrimination claims. Disparate impact discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral practice or policy of a covered entity unlawfully results in a disproportionately negative effect based on a protected characteristic, even where there is no intent to discriminate.
“The landmark rules we are adopting today further solidify our state’s nation-leading civil rights protections. As the Trump Administration continues its unlawful attempts to dismantle disparate impact protections at the federal level, it’s more important than ever that states take action to protect the civil rights of their residents – and that’s exactly what we’re doing,” said Attorney General Platkin. “These landmark rules, which are the most comprehensive disparate impact rules in the country, make clear that the Law Against Discrimination prohibits discrimination in all of its forms, and they confirm New Jersey’s commitment to upholding the LAD’s protections and continuing our state’s longstanding leadership on civil rights.”
“The LAD safeguards against not only intentional acts of discrimination but also practices and policies that disproportionately affect members of protected groups,” said Yolanda N. Melville, Director of the Division on Civil Rights. “The comprehensive rules announced today provides increased clarity on disparate impact liability and helps improve the way we enforce civil rights in New Jersey.”
Disparate impact discrimination liability is a powerful tool to remedy practices and policies that harm members of historically marginalized communities. These rules will provide New Jerseyans with a better understanding of the LAD’s protections and provide regulated entities – such as housing providers, employers, and places of public accommodation – with a better understanding of their legal obligations.
The rules adopted today confirm that New Jersey’s civil rights laws continue to prohibit disparate impact discrimination – notwithstanding the Trump Administration’s unprecedented attempts to dismantle disparate impact standards at the federal level. Not only are those federal attempts to roll back disparate impact liability standards inconsistent with existing federal law, but they cannot and do not change the standards applicable under state law—standards that today’s landmark rules now codify in New Jersey.
The newly adopted rules codify existing case law and provide examples to clarify the types of practices and policies that could violate the LAD by having a disparate impact on members of a protected class. The LAD prohibits disparate impact discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, disability, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics in employment, housing, places of public accommodation, financial lending, and contracting.
“The landmark rules we are adopting today further solidify our state’s nation-leading civil rights protections. As the Trump Administration continues its unlawful attempts to dismantle disparate impact protections at the federal level, it’s more important than ever that states take action to protect the civil rights of their residents – and that’s exactly what we’re doing,” said Attorney General Platkin. “These landmark rules, which are the most comprehensive disparate impact rules in the country, make clear that the Law Against Discrimination prohibits discrimination in all of its forms, and they confirm New Jersey’s commitment to upholding the LAD’s protections and continuing our state’s longstanding leadership on civil rights.”
“The LAD safeguards against not only intentional acts of discrimination but also practices and policies that disproportionately affect members of protected groups,” said Yolanda N. Melville, Director of the Division on Civil Rights. “The comprehensive rules announced today provides increased clarity on disparate impact liability and helps improve the way we enforce civil rights in New Jersey.”
Disparate impact discrimination liability is a powerful tool to remedy practices and policies that harm members of historically marginalized communities. These rules will provide New Jerseyans with a better understanding of the LAD’s protections and provide regulated entities – such as housing providers, employers, and places of public accommodation – with a better understanding of their legal obligations.
The rules adopted today confirm that New Jersey’s civil rights laws continue to prohibit disparate impact discrimination – notwithstanding the Trump Administration’s unprecedented attempts to dismantle disparate impact standards at the federal level. Not only are those federal attempts to roll back disparate impact liability standards inconsistent with existing federal law, but they cannot and do not change the standards applicable under state law—standards that today’s landmark rules now codify in New Jersey.
The newly adopted rules codify existing case law and provide examples to clarify the types of practices and policies that could violate the LAD by having a disparate impact on members of a protected class. The LAD prohibits disparate impact discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, disability, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics in employment, housing, places of public accommodation, financial lending, and contracting.
The collapse of law into tyranny is an old story...Rome, Othello, Stalin, Mao come immediately to mind. We are accustomed to deferring to the President as the directly elected vox populi. But when in the course of human events....
Whereas the late [former] King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.... By Assumeing and Exerciseing a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without Consent of Parlyament.
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
"Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power."
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
“The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts,” said Smith, according to a copy of portions of that statement. He maintained that this team found evidence to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power. Smith also said his team found “powerful evidence” in the classified documents case and alleged that the president “repeatedly tried to obstruct justice.”
President for Life - The Atlantic
Donald Trump is trying to amass the powers of a king.
NEWARK, NJ – Today, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ) issued the following statement regarding Alina Habba’s resignation as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey:
“Today’s resignation of Alina Habba from her role as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey brings to a close a troubling chapter and confirms what we have warned from the start. Habba’s installation through an irregular and unlawful process undermined the credibility of the office and eroded the public’s trust in the state’s chief federal prosecutor. The courts’ rulings only confirmed our longstanding concerns—that this appointment was driven by political loyalty, not qualifications or respect for the rule of law.
“In light of this leadership vacuum, the administration must now act swiftly and responsibly. We hope that they will work with us to put forward a qualified nominee––one with deep prosecutorial experience, unquestioned integrity, and a genuine commitment to delivering impartial justice––and to give the Senate a full, fair opportunity to consider that nominee. New Jersey deserves no less, and we will not compromise on the safety of our communities.”
