A hearing is underway now in the case of Richard Barnett, one of the Capitol insurrection defs (photographed at Pelosi's desk) — the govt is challenging an Arkansas magistrate judge's release order. Chief Judge Beryl Howell in DC halted his release until she rules on the matter
More from Zoe Tillman
New, with more to come: DOJ under Biden is keeping up the previous admin's effort to take over Trump's defense against a defamation lawsuit filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized during the campaign.
First brief under new admin: https://t.co/JihPuNXxHj
Story: DOJ is keeping up an effort to try to take over Donald Trump's defense against a defamation case filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized as a candidate last fall.
Key phrase in tonight's brief? "institutional interests" https://t.co/LTuq3vv58F
This is the latest case that tests DOJ's traditional role of defending the power and prerogatives of the executive branch — any executive branch, regardless of president. What's unusual is that Biden had weighed in on this case specifically.
DOJ says Trump's comments about Carroll — who accused him of raping her more than 20 years ago — were "crude and disrespectful." Notably, that language does not appear in DOJ's prev. brief filed 1/15. But DOJ says the case isn't about what's "appropriate"
A federal district judge in Manhattan had rebuffed DOJ's effort last fall to substitute the US govt for Trump as the defendant. If the government ultimately wins, it would likely spell the end of Carroll's suit, since the US is immune against libel suits
First brief under new admin: https://t.co/JihPuNXxHj
Story: DOJ is keeping up an effort to try to take over Donald Trump's defense against a defamation case filed by writer E. Jean Carroll — an effort Biden criticized as a candidate last fall.
Key phrase in tonight's brief? "institutional interests" https://t.co/LTuq3vv58F
This is the latest case that tests DOJ's traditional role of defending the power and prerogatives of the executive branch — any executive branch, regardless of president. What's unusual is that Biden had weighed in on this case specifically.
DOJ says Trump's comments about Carroll — who accused him of raping her more than 20 years ago — were "crude and disrespectful." Notably, that language does not appear in DOJ's prev. brief filed 1/15. But DOJ says the case isn't about what's "appropriate"
A federal district judge in Manhattan had rebuffed DOJ's effort last fall to substitute the US govt for Trump as the defendant. If the government ultimately wins, it would likely spell the end of Carroll's suit, since the US is immune against libel suits
A detention hearing is about to start in federal court in Arkansas in the case of Richard Barnett, the man photographed sitting in Nancy Pelosi's office (see: https://t.co/GAAENhkxf0). He's been in custody since his arrest
Prosecutors alleged Barnett was carrying a stun gun. He's charged with entering a restricted area w/ a weapon, violent entry/disorderly conduct, and theft. There isn't anything on the docket indicating what the govt/Barnett will be seeking as far as detention v. release
We're still waiting for the Richard Barnett detention hearing to start in Arkansas. Meanwhile, follow @o_ema for updates on initial appearances in DC federal court today for a few of the Capitol insurrection arrestees -->
Richard Barnett's detention hearing is underway in Arkansas — Judge Erin Wiedemann will decide if Barnett should stay behind bars. The first witness is FBI special agent Jonathan Willett, who was involved in the Capitol riot investigation
FBI agent walks the judge through surveillance videos that the agent says show Barnett walking in and out of Nancy Pelosi's office, with a "walking stick Taser" on his hip, as well as the widely disseminated photos of Barnett sitting in Pelosi's chair with his feet up
Prosecutors alleged Barnett was carrying a stun gun. He's charged with entering a restricted area w/ a weapon, violent entry/disorderly conduct, and theft. There isn't anything on the docket indicating what the govt/Barnett will be seeking as far as detention v. release
We're still waiting for the Richard Barnett detention hearing to start in Arkansas. Meanwhile, follow @o_ema for updates on initial appearances in DC federal court today for a few of the Capitol insurrection arrestees -->
Listening in on more hearings: The 1st is Kevin Loftus, WI, arrested for participating in the riots at the Capitol, charged w Class A misdemeanor. Judge decreed he is released on the condition that he does not return to DC, doesn't drink or do drugs, and doesn't break any laws.
— Ema O'Connor (@o_ema) January 15, 2021
Richard Barnett's detention hearing is underway in Arkansas — Judge Erin Wiedemann will decide if Barnett should stay behind bars. The first witness is FBI special agent Jonathan Willett, who was involved in the Capitol riot investigation
FBI agent walks the judge through surveillance videos that the agent says show Barnett walking in and out of Nancy Pelosi's office, with a "walking stick Taser" on his hip, as well as the widely disseminated photos of Barnett sitting in Pelosi's chair with his feet up
More from Law
We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
In this thread, I noted the lawyer acting against the Tavistock, Paul Conrathe, is using very similar arguments (those under 18 cannot consent at all; or cannot lawfully consent without x conditions) as he has run/is running in a number of cases challenging abortion rights. https://t.co/gJk4c9bUED
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) June 21, 2020
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
One of the judges this story mentions is William Cassidy, who was promoted from an Atlanta IJ position to a BIA member position in 2019 by the Trump DOJ. Cassidy has an awful history that has been well-documented, but I'm still enraged reading this reporting.
The story notes that the EOIR Director served as an ICE attorney in Atlanta and practiced before Cassidy for years. And it points to FOIA records unearthed by Bryan Johnson showing they remain friendly.
A trove of complaints against Cassidy was published by AILA in 2019 after FOIA litigation. They generally show misconduct, substantiated in the record, followed by "written counseling" etc.
One way Cassidy could avoid discipline is by turning off the recording device during the hearing. If he made a lewd or offensive comment off the record, all the EOIR would do is listen to the recording. If it's not there, the complaint is "unsubstantiated" https://t.co/wUeBPEEbpV
In that case, Cassidy joked about a detained immigrant saying he missed his wife. The complaint was dismissed because the ACIJ found "no levity or joking" in the comment.
\U0001f6a8New investigation: \U0001f6a8
— Tal Kopan (@TalKopan) January 22, 2021
How sexual harassment and misconduct has been allowed to flourish in the immigration courts, a system intended to give immigrants a fair chance to stay in the U.S.:https://t.co/Lw8hpK5jSe
The story notes that the EOIR Director served as an ICE attorney in Atlanta and practiced before Cassidy for years. And it points to FOIA records unearthed by Bryan Johnson showing they remain friendly.
A trove of complaints against Cassidy was published by AILA in 2019 after FOIA litigation. They generally show misconduct, substantiated in the record, followed by "written counseling" etc.
One way Cassidy could avoid discipline is by turning off the recording device during the hearing. If he made a lewd or offensive comment off the record, all the EOIR would do is listen to the recording. If it's not there, the complaint is "unsubstantiated" https://t.co/wUeBPEEbpV
In that case, Cassidy joked about a detained immigrant saying he missed his wife. The complaint was dismissed because the ACIJ found "no levity or joking" in the comment.
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
