Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Battered Biden gets chance to change political narrative as Breyer retires

      by

      Battered Biden gets chance to change political narrative as Breyer retiresAnalysis: president faces high expectations as he prepares make one of his most consequential decisions In his spare time, Justice Stephen Breyer enjoyed taking the bench at humorous “mock trials” of characters such as Macbeth and Richard III for Washington’s Shakespeare Theatre Company. The case usually turned on epic battles over succession.Now Washington is about to be consumed by the question of who will inherit Breyer’s crown following his reported decision to retire from the US supreme court. At 83, he is its oldest member, one of three liberals outnumbered by six conservatives.This is a perfectly timed political gift for Joe Biden, aware that choosing a supreme court justice is one of the most consequential decisions that any president can make.After a year in the White House, Biden was limping with a stalled legislative agenda, a tenacious pandemic and Vladimir Putin threatening Ukraine. He was a tired brand in desperate need of a relaunch, a tough ask at the age of 79.Biden ‘stands by’ pledge to nominate Black woman to supreme court, White House says – liveRead moreBreyer has provided it, instantly changing the conversation. “This has to feel like a political elixir right now,” observed Chuck Todd, host of MSNBC’s Meet the Press Daily show.A vacancy on the highest court enables Biden to rally the Democratic base and begin to cement a legacy that, despite early ambitions, had recently looked to be in jeopardy. Although the ideological balance of the court will not change, Biden could choose a young liberal who will serve for decades.The Senate, which must approve his choice, is divided between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans with Vice-President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker vote. Breyer has given it enough time to confirm the president’s pick before the midterm elections could shift the balance of power.Democratic divisions have been on display of late but a supreme court vacancy typically unites a party like nothing else. Even senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who broke ranks over the Build Back Better plan and voting rights, have voted for every Biden nominee to the lower courts so far. Both will presumably regard this confirmation as an easy way to win back some favour with angry liberals.Not for the first time, however, Biden has raised expectations. At a debate in the 2020 Democratic primary, he declared: “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the supreme court, to make sure we, in fact, get every representation.” His judicial appointments so far have been historically diverse, and Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters after the news of Breyer’s imminent retirement broke that Biden “certainly stands by” his promise.The upshot is that if he now nominates anyone other than a Black woman, there will be disappointment on the left. Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive group Stand Up America, said on Wednesday: “President Biden promised to appoint the country’s first-ever Black woman supreme court justice, and he must make good on that promise.“The president and vice-president’s voters are watching eagerly to see that he follows through and makes history with his first supreme court nomination.”Potential candidates include the US circuit judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California supreme court justice Leondra Kruger, civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill and US district judge Michelle Childs, a favourite of the South Carolina congressman James Clyburn, a Biden ally.Notably, when Jackson was confirmed last year to the influential US court of appeals for the DC circuit, often seen as a springboard to supreme court, the Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted with Democrats in favour.Carl Tobias, Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond, said: “I expect that the Democrats will remain united, as they have so far, because all Democratic members, including Senators Manchin and Sinema, have voted for all of Biden’s lower court nominees.“Most GOP senators have voted against many Biden lower court nominees. The major exception is Lindsey Graham, who has voted for many Biden lower court nominees in committee and on the floor. Senators Collins and Murkowski have also voted to confirm a number of Biden lower court nominees. If the Democrats vote together, they do not need GOP votes.”It remains an open question whether a handful of Republicans might back Biden’s nominee given the politicisation of the court in recent years – from Republicans blocking Barack Obama’s pick Merrick Garland to the rancour that surrounded Donald Trump’s three appointments, and the court’s imminent decision on the constitutional right to abortion.In an ominous statement on Wednesday, Graham said: “If all Democrats hang together – which I expect they will – they have the power to replace Justice Breyer in 2022 without one Republican vote in support. Elections have consequences, and that is most evident when it comes to fulfilling vacancies on the supreme court.”Don’t call Joe Biden a failed president yet | Gary GerstleRead moreMeanwhile, Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, fired the first shots of a partisan battle to come. “The left bullied Justice Breyer into retirement and now it will demand a justice who rubber-stamps its liberal political agenda,” she said. “And that’s what the Democrats will give them, because they’re beholden to the dark money supporters who helped elect them.”Yet it is Republicans who waged a multi-generational project to tilt the court in their favour with the help of the Federalist Society, which created a pipeline of young, ideologically rightwing lawyers. Trump’s release during the 2016 election of a shortlist of judges for the court helped him secure the conservative base; his three justices are likely to be his most lasting legacy.Democrats were criticised for being slow to wake up to the threat and lacking similar aggression. Now, thanks to Breyer’s retirement, they find themselves with the unaccustomed comfort of having political momentum on their side.TopicsJoe BidenUS supreme courtLaw (US)DemocratsRepublicansUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme court rejects Trump bid to shield documents from January 6 panel

      by

      Supreme court rejects Trump bid to shield documents from January 6 panelCourt’s move leaves no legal impediment to turning National Archives documents over to congressional committee The US supreme court has rejected a request by Donald Trump to block the release of White House records to the congressional committee investigating the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol, dealing a blow to the former president.The order, which casts aside Trump’s request to stop the House select committee from obtaining the records while the case makes its way through the courts, means more than 700 documents that could shed light on the attack can be transferred to Congress.The only member of the high court who signaled he would have granted Trump’s request for an injunction was justice Clarence Thomas. The order did not provide a reasoning for turning down the application, which is not uncommon for requests for emergency stays.Trump’s defeat in court allows the select committee to obtain from the National Archives some of the most sensitive White House records from his administration, including call logs, daily presidential diaries, handwritten notes and memos from his top aides.The documents, which Trump tried to shield behind claims of executive privilege, also included materials in the files of his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, deputy counsel Pat Philbin and advisor Stephen Miller.“These records all relate to the events on or about January 6, and may assist the Select Committee’s investigation into that day,” justice department attorneys, acting on behalf of chief archivist David Ferriero, wrote in an earlier filing.The supreme court’s action, which follows the earlier rejection of Trump’s request by two lower courts, is also likely to have a cascading effect on other lawsuits filed against the panel, which hinged on the success of Trump’s pending litigation.Lawyers for Trump had urged the supreme court to take the case as they disagreed with the unanimous ruling of the US appeals court for the DC circuit that the current president Joe Biden could waive executive privilege over the objections of a former president.The lower court rulings directing the National Archives to turn over the records “gut the ability of former presidents to maintain executive privilege over the objection of an incumbent, who is often, as is the case here, a political rival”, they said.Trump’s legal team argued that the select committee also lacked a legitimate, legislative need for seeking the documents and was instead engaged in a partisan investigation seeking evidence to cause political damage to the former president.“These sweeping requests are indicative of the committee’s broad investigation of a political foe, divorced from any of Congress’s legislative functions,” Trump’s lawyers said of the panel.But in an unsigned opinion, the nation’s highest court rejected those arguments, upholding the appellate court ruling that found that although Trump had some limited power to exercise executive privilege, it was not sufficient to overcome Biden’s waiver.The court cited a 1977 supreme court decision in a dispute between former president Richard Nixon and the National Archives, which said the sitting president was in the best position to decide whether the protection should be asserted.The appeals court said that as long as the select committee could cite at least one legislative purpose for the documents – reforming laws to prevent a repeat of January 6, for instance – that would be enough to justify its request for Trumps’ records.The select committee has also rebutted Trump’s claim that forcing the National Archives to hand over White House documents could discourage future presidential aides from providing candid advice.That argument was misguided, the select committee said, because the conduct by Trump and some of his most senior aides under investigation went far beyond any usual deliberations concerning a president’s official duties.Moments after the supreme court handed down its decision, investigators working in the select committee’s offices on Capitol Hill were heard clapping in celebration, just as the panel subpoenaed more individuals connected to the January 6 insurrection.In its latest investigative action, the panel issued subpoenas to far-right Trump activists Nicholas Fuentes and Patrick Casey who received thousands of dollars in funds potentially connected to illegal activity and the Capitol attack.The new subpoenas demanding documents and testimony from Fuentes and Casey suggest the panel is drawing closer to the source of funding for the rallies that preceded the Capitol attack and the coordinated travel plans of thousands of pro-Trump rioters.Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said that House investigators are interested in the pair since they were intimately involved in the transfer of money surrounding the Capitol attack and were present on Capitol grounds on January 6.The select committee said in the subpoena letters that Fuentes and Casey led the “America First” or “Groyper” movement and promulgated lies about voter fraud as they sought to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win and get Trump a second term.TopicsDonald TrumpUS supreme courtLaw (US)Trump administrationUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Guantánamo Bay at 20: why have attempts to close the prison failed?

      by

      The US prison in Cuba has been beset by allegations of torture since it was set up 20 years ago. But despite all the promises to close it down, it remains operational with no end in sight, says Julian Borger

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      The first prisoners arrived at the newly built Camp X-Ray prison at the US naval base in Cuba’s Guantánamo Bay on 11 January 2002. It was a makeshift jail formed of chain-link cages and barbed-wire fences, watched over by snipers in plywood guard towers. It was never intended to be permanent, but from the start it had an ambiguous legal status: outside normal US law, it housed what the military called ‘enemy combatants’, not prisoners of war. Twenty years on, approximately 780 prisoners have been held at Guantánamo in total. However, beset by allegations of abuse and torture at the camp, authorities have only been able to bring charges against 12 men and convictions against two. The Guardian’s world affairs editor, Julian Borger, tells Nosheen Iqbal that the murky legal status of Guantánamo Bay that made it so attractive to the US government in 2002 is now making it so difficult to close. Despite the hopes of three presidents (Bush, Obama and Biden, but not Trump) to close it, progress has been glacially slow. It requires the willingness of US allies to accept the transfer of prisoners, and while there was some momentum in the early phase of Obama’s presidency, it has since dried up. Meanwhile, 39 prisoners continue to spend their days inside Guantánamo, with little prospect of release for many of them. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden health chief endures Fox News grilling over mixed Covid messaging

      by

      Biden health chief endures Fox News grilling over mixed Covid messagingAs supreme court ponders workplace vaccine mandate, CDC director Rochelle Walensky seeks to set record straight Facing accusations of confusing messaging about the Omicron Covid surge, a senior Biden administration official was forced on to the back foot on Sunday by a supreme court justice’s mistaken remark about hospitalisations among children.Omicron could be ‘first ray of light’ towards living with CovidRead moreDuring oral arguments over a vaccinations mandate for private employers, the liberal justice Sonya Sotomayor said on Friday the US had “over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators”.Reporters were swift to point out she was wrong. Though concern about children and Omicron is widespread, the Washington Post cited official data in saying there were “about 5,000 children hospitalised … either with suspected Covid or a confirmed laboratory test”.According to Johns Hopkins University, more than 836,000 people have died of Covid in the US. More than 206 million Americans, or 62.5% of the eligible population, are considered fully vaccinated.The Covid response has been dogged by resistance to vaccines and other public health measures stoked by politicians and rightwing media prominently including Fox News.Nonetheless, critics charge that official messaging has become muddled, not least over the recent decision to cut recommended quarantine from 10 days to five, and confusion about when or if the infected should test again.Earlier this week, it was reported that Dr Rochelle Walensky, director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was undergoing media training. She also told told reporters she was “committed to improve” communications.Walensky was interviewed on Fox News Sunday. In Bret Baier, she faced perhaps Fox’s toughest interviewer, after the departure of Chris Wallace. It was not an easy experience.Baier asked: “The supreme court is in the process of dealing with this big issue about mandates. Do you feel it is the responsibility of the CDC director to correct a very big mischaracterisation by one of the supreme court justices?”“Yeah,” said Walensky. “Here’s what I’ll tell you. I’ll tell you that right now, if you’re unvaccinated, you’re 17 times more likely to be in the hospital and 20 times more likely to die than if you’re boosted.“And so my responsibility is to provide guidance and recommendations to protect the American people. Those recommendations strongly recommend vaccination for our children above the age of five and boosting for everyone above the age of 18 if they’re eligible.”Baier asked if the administration knew how many children were on ventilators.“I do not have that off the top of my head,” Walensky said. “But what I can say is I don’t believe there are any in many of these hospitals who are vaccinated.“So really, the highest risk of being on a ventilator for a child is if you’re unvaccinated. We also have recent data out just this week that’s demonstrated that dangerous MIS-C syndrome that we’re seeing in children, 91% protection if you’ve been vaccinated.”Baier said: “The risk of death or serious illness in children is still very small, right?”Walensky said: “Comparatively, the risk of death is small. But of course, you know, children are not supposed to die. So you know, if we have a child who is sick with Covid-19, we want to protect them.”Baier said: “Officially, you emphasise that one of your primary goals was to restore public trust, but do you think it’s fair to say that the trust and confidence of the public has gone down with the CDC?”“You know,” Walensky said, “this is hard. We have ever-evolving science with an ever-evolving variant and my job is to provide updated advice in the context of rapidly rising cases. And that is what we’ve done and I’m here to explain it to the American people and I am committed to continuing to do so and to continuing to improve.”Baier said: “We appreciate you coming on, we really do. Just getting facts out there.”Most observers think the supreme court, tilted 6-3 in favour of conservatives after three appointments under Donald Trump, seems likely to strike down the workplace mandate. The rule is due to come into effect on Monday.Baier said: “The questioning in the supreme court also said that Omicron was as deadly as Delta. That is not true, right?”Omicron drives Covid surge but New York a long way from pandemic’s early daysRead moreWalensky said: “We are starting to see data from other countries that indicate on a person-by-person basis it may not be. However, given the volume of cases that we’re seeing with Omicron we very well may see death rates rise dramatically.”Asked if mandates for private employers or government employees including members of the armed forces were necessary if prior infection conferred protection, Walensky said: “I think the thing that’s most disruptive to any business or industry has to have half their workforce out because they’re sick with Covid.”Such is the case in New York City, where essential services are struggling for staff.“We have seen with the Omicron variant,” Walensky added, “that prior infection protects you less well than it had … with prior variants.“Right now, I think the most important thing to do is to protect Americans. We do that by getting them vaccinated and getting them boosted.”TopicsBiden administrationUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)Vaccines and immunisationOmicron variantnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Sarah Weddington, attorney who won Roe v Wade abortion case, dies aged 76

      by

      Sarah Weddington, attorney who won Roe v Wade abortion case, dies aged 76Texan lawyer and Linda Coffee won landmark 1973 case, safeguarding right now under threat from US supreme court

      How dismantling Roe v Wade would threaten other rights
      Sarah Weddington, an attorney who argued and won the Roe v Wade supreme court case which established the right to abortion in the US, has died aged 76.Susan Hays, a Democratic candidate for Texas agriculture commissioner, announced the news on Twitter on Sunday and the Dallas Morning News confirmed it.“Sarah Weddington died this morning after a series of health issues,” Hays wrote. “With Linda Coffee, she filed the first case of her legal career, Roe v Wade, fresh out of law school. She was my professor … the best writing instructor I ever had, and a great mentor.“At 27 she argued Roe to [the supreme court] (a fact that always made me feel like a gross underachiever). Ironically, she worked on the case because law firms would not hire women in the early 70s, leaving her with lots of time for good trouble.”The court ruled on Roe v Wade in 1973. Nearly 50 years later the right it established is under threat from a supreme court packed with hardline conservatives, in part thanks to a Texas law that drastically restricts access and offers incentives for reporting women to authorities.In 2017, speaking to the Guardian, Weddington predicted such a turn of events. “If [Neil] Gorsuch’s nomination is approved, will abortion be illegal the next day? No. One new judge won’t necessarily make much difference. But two or three might.”After steering Gorsuch on to the court – and a seat held open by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell when Barack Obama was president – Donald Trump installed Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett replaced the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion of women’s rights.Weddington found her way to Roe v Wade soon after graduating from law school at the University of Texas. Represented by Weddington and Coffee, Norma McCorvey became the plaintiff known as “Jane Roe” in Roe v Wade. McCorvey became an evangelical Christian and opponent of abortion. She died in 2017.In her Guardian interview, Weddington discussed arguing the case in federal court. “I was very nervous,” she said. “It was like going down a street with no street lights. But there was no other way to go and I didn’t have any preconceived notions that I would not win.”She won, but the case continued.“Henry Wade, the district attorney, unwittingly helped us,” she said. “At a press conference, he said, ‘I don’t care what any court says; I am going to continue to prosecute doctors who carry out abortion.’ There was a procedural rule that said if local elected officials continue to prosecute after a federal court had declared a law unconstitutional, there would be a right to appeal to the supreme court.”‘Historical accident’: how abortion came to focus white, evangelical angerRead moreBefore the court in Washington, Weddington said: “It was impossible to read the justices’ faces. The attorney on the other side started by saying something inappropriate about arguing a case against a beautiful woman. He thought the judges would snicker. But their faces didn’t change a bit.“I had to argue it twice in the supreme court: in 1971 and again in 1972. On 22 January 1973 I was at the Texas legislature when the phone rang. It was a reporter from the New York Times. ‘Does Miss Weddington have a comment today about Roe v Wade?’ my assistant was asked. ‘Why?’ she said. ‘Should she?’“It was beginning to be very exciting. Then we got a telegram from the supreme court saying that I had won 7-2 and that they were going to air-mail a copy of the ruling. Nowadays, of course, you’d just go online.“I was ecstatic, and more than 44 years later we’re still talking about it.”Weddington later revealed that she had an abortion herself, in 1967. “Just before the anaesthesia hit,” she said, “I thought: ‘I hope no one ever knows about this.’ For a lot of years, that was exactly the way I felt. Now there’s a major push to encourage women to tell their stories so people will realise that it is not a shameful thing. One out of every five women will have an abortion.”Weddington predicted: “Whatever else I do in my life, the headline on my obituary is always going to be ‘Roe v Wade attorney dies’.”In fact she achieved much more, as Hays detailed in her tweets on Sunday. “Those career doors shut to her led her to run for office, getting elected as the first woman from Travis county in the [Texas legislature] in 1972 (along with four other women elected to the House: Kay Bailey, Chris Miller, Betty Andujar and Senfronia Thompson).“She was general counsel of the United States Department of Agriculture under [Jimmy] Carter and enjoyed her stint in DC. Federal judicial nominations for Texas were run by her as a high-ranking Texan in the administration.“A Dallas lawyer she knew sought a bench. She had interviewed with him while at UT law. He’d asked her, ‘What will we tell our wives if we hire you?’ She told him he was wasting their time and hers and walked out of the interview. He did not get the judgeship.“Ever the proper preacher’s daughter, she would never tell me who the lawyer was. People don’t know that about Sarah. She was such a proper Methodist minister’s daughter. One of the few people I couldn’t cuss in front of.”Hays also paid tribute to Weddington as a teacher and a member of a “Great Austin Matriarchy” that also included the former Texas governor Ann Richards and the columnist Molly Ivins.In her Guardian interview, Weddington indicated she was at peace with being remembered for Roe v Wade. “I think most women of my generation can recall our feelings about the fight,” she said. “It’s like young love. You may not feel exactly the same, but you remember it.”TopicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS politicsUS healthcareUS supreme courtUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-Georgia election workers sue Giuliani and OAN, saying fraud claims put them in danger

      by

      Ex-Georgia election workers sue Giuliani and OAN, saying fraud claims put them in dangerRuby Freeman and daughter claim they became center of unfounded conspiracy theories and were singled out by Trump Two former Georgia election workers have filed a defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani, the rightwing One America News Network and several of its senior executives, claiming the workers became the target of vote-rigging conspiracy theories that put them in physical danger and threatened their livelihoods.During the 2020 election, Ruby Freeman and daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss worked as poll workers counting ballots at State Farm Arena in Fulton county, Georgia. They claim they became the center of a series of unfounded conspiracy theories promoted by former New York mayor Giuliani, who was then serving as an advisor to Trump, and several top employees at the California-based OAN news network.“As a result of their vital service, Ms Freeman and Ms Moss have become the objects of vitriol, threats, and harassment,” they said in Thursday’s complaint, filed in federal court in Washington.“They found themselves in this unenviable position not based on anything they did, but instead because of a campaign of malicious lies designed to accuse them of interfering with a fair and impartial election, which is precisely what each of them swore an oath to protect,” the suit said.The action targets San Diego-based Herring Networks, which owns and operates One America News Network, as well as the channel’s chief executive Robert Herring, president Charles Herring, and reporter Chanel Rion.Giuliani, Trump’s former personal lawyer often appeared on OAN and spearheaded the drive to claim voter fraud in the aftermath of the election and was also named as a defendant.In the complaint, Moss and Freeman claim that OAN broadcast stories falsely accusing them of conspiring to produce secret batches of illegal ballots and running them through voting machines to help Trump, who ultimately lost the state by 12,670 votes.Election workers in states closely won by Joe Biden, in particular, have faced a barrage of abuse from extremists pushing a lie that Trump was denied a win last November because of widespread electoral fraud.‘It’s been a barrage every day’: US election workers face threats and harassmentRead moreTrump himself pressured Georgia’s top election official, Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, in a phone call to “find” the necessary votes to wrongly secure him a win in the state in the November, 2020, presidential election.Meanwhile, in an interview, OAN chief executive Robert Herring Sr told Reuters he was not concerned about the lawsuit and that his network had done nothing wrong.“I know all about it and I’m laughing,” he said of the lawsuit. “I’m laughing about the four or five others who are suing me. Eventually, it will turn on them and go the other way.”The plaintiffs in the action have also filed a defamation suit against The Gateway Pundit, a far-right website, claiming that the site’s managers and writers, twins brothers Jim and Joe Hoft, “instigated a deluge of intimidation, harassment, and threats that has forced them to change their phone numbers, delete their online accounts, and fear for their physical safety”.Among the accusations levelled at Freeman in the month after the election a year ago, Gateway Pundit accused her of “counting illegal ballots from a suitcase stashed under a table”.Trump also singled out Freeman during that phone call with Raffensberger, claiming she “stuffed the ballot boxes” and was a scammer.Giuliani accused Freeman and Moss of acting suspiciously, like drug dealers “passing out dope,” their lawsuit asserts.Georgia state officials have said such “suitcases” were standard ballot containers and votes were properly counted under the watch of an independent monitor and a state investigator.TopicsGeorgiaThe fight to voteRudy GiulianiDonald TrumpLaw (US)RepublicansUS elections 2020US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump asks supreme court to block release of 6 January records

      by

      Trump asks supreme court to block release of 6 January recordsAn appeals court ruled against the former US president two weeks ago but prohibited documents from being turned over Donald Trump turned to the supreme court Thursday in a last-ditch effort to keep documents away from the House committee investigating the 6 January insurrection at the Capitol.A federal appeals court ruled against the former US president two weeks ago, but prohibited documents held by the National Archives from being turned over before the supreme court had a chance to weigh in. Trump appointed three of the nine justices.Michael Flynn sues Capitol attack committee in bid to block subpoenaRead moreTrump is claiming that as a former president he has right to assert executive privilege over the records, arguing that releasing them would damage the presidency in the future.But Joe Biden determined that the documents were in the public interest and that executive privilege should therefore not be invoked.The documents include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts, handwritten notes “concerning the events of January 6” from the files of former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and “a draft executive order on the topic of election integrity”, the Archives has said.The House committee has said the records are vital to its investigation into the run-up to the deadly riot that was aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas governor Greg Abbott stays silent on whether he will pardon George Floyd

      by

      Texas governor Greg Abbott stays silent on whether he will pardon George FloydParole board unanimously recommended pardon for 2004 drug arrest by ex-officer whose work is no longer trusted by prosecutors Doling out pardons is a Christmas tradition for Greg Abbott, who grants them typically for minor offenses committed years or decades ago. This year, one name stands out on the Republican Texas governor’s desk: George Floyd.Abbott has not said if he will posthumously pardon Floyd for a 2004 drug arrest in Houston by a former officer whose work is no longer trusted by prosecutors.Floyd, who was Black, spent much of his life in Houston before moving to Minnesota, where his murder by a white police officer, who knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes, led last year to a global reckoning on race and policing.Texas’ parole board – stacked with Abbott appointees – unanimously recommended a pardon for Floyd in October.Abbott, who is up for reelection in 2022, has given no indication of whether he will grant what would be only the second posthumous pardon in Texas history.“It doesn’t matter who you think George Floyd was, or what you think he stood for or didn’t stand for,” said Allison Mathis, a public defender in Houston who submitted Floyd’s pardon application. “What matters is he didn’t do this. It’s important for the governor to correct the record to show he didn’t do this.”A spokeswoman for Abbott did not respond to requests for comment.Pardons restore the rights of the convicted and forgive them in the eyes of the law. Floyd’s family and supporters said a posthumous pardon in Texas would show a commitment to accountability.In February 2004, Floyd was arrested in Houston for selling $10 worth of crack in a police sting. He pleaded guilty to a drug charge and served 10 months in prison.His case happened to be among dozens that prosecutors revisited in the fallout over a deadly drug raid in 2019 that resulted in murder charges against an officer, Gerald Goines, who is no longer with the Houston force.Prosecutors say Goines lied to obtain a search warrant in the raid that left a husband and wife dead, and the office of the Harris county district attorney, Kim Ogg, has dismissed more than 160 drug convictions tied to Goines.Goines has pleaded not guilty and his attorneys accuse Ogg of launching the review for political gain.Abbott has several primary challengers from the far right. His silence about a pardon for Floyd has raised questions over whether political calculations are at play. His office has not responded to those charges.Abbott attended Floyd’s memorial service last year in Houston, where he met family members and floated the idea of a George Floyd Act that deals with police brutality.But Abbott never publicly supported such a measure when lawmakers returned to the Capitol, where Republicans instead made police funding a priority.State senator Royce West, a Democrat who carried the George Floyd Act in the Senate, said he understands the politics if Abbott was waiting until after the primary in March. But he said the governor should act on the recommendation.“As he’s always said, he is a law and order governor,“ West said. “And this would be following the law.”TopicsGeorge FloydGreg AbbottTexasLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More