Lawmakers Want Justice Department To Investigate More Trump Allies

WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are asking the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate whether special counsel John Durham and former Attorney General Bill Barr abused their authority with their review of Congress' Russia inquiry.

???The Democrats say they have evidence Durham and Barr might have been helping former President Donald Trump cover up a campaign finance crime.

??A letter from Reps. Ted W. Lieu, D-Calif., and Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., implies Trump’s associates were following a best defense is a good offense strategy by investigating the investigators.

???It represents the second time in days Trump associates are facing a legal backlash for their support of the former president.

???The four-page letter says a New York Times story last month revealed "possible prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of power, ethical transgressions, and a potential cover up of an allegation of a financial crime committed by the former president."

???It also accuses Durham of "improper politicization of the investigation and questionable charging decisions."

??The latest round of accusations began with Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s 2016 to 2017 investigation into links between Russian government officials and the Trump presidential campaign. The FBI investigated whether the Russian government was trying to influence the 2016 presidential election.

???The investigation led to the Mueller Report, which concluded that there was Russian interference in a "sweeping and systematic fashion" with substantial links to the Trump campaign. It fell short of finding the Trump campaign "conspired or coordinated" with the Russian government.

???Trump fired back by calling Crossfire Hurricane a "hoax" and "witch hunt" instigated by his political enemies.

???At Trump’s urging, Barr announced he would review why the FBI did the investigation. Barr assigned Durham to lead the effort.?

???After 3-1/2 years, Durham indicted three men, one of whom pleaded guilty to a charge unrelated to the FBI investigation. He was sentenced to probation.

???The other two men were tried and acquitted. In both trials, Durham said the defendants lied to the FBI but he did not accuse the FBI of improperly investigating Trump.

???One of them was Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. Two prosecutors quit in protest of the Sussmann prosecution, citing “scant evidence.”

???The other man who was acquitted was Igor Danchenko, who gave the FBI information about alleged ties between Russia and Trump. He was accused of lying about his sources of information.

???Lieu and Goldman said The New York Times' report indicated Barr and Durham hid their true motives for charging Sussmann and Danchenko. The report quoted a Barr interview on Fox News in which his words could be interpreted to mean he admitted pursuing political goals through the courts.

???"Charging individuals with crimes in order to pursue separate political narratives undermines our rule of law and represents a gross abuse of power," the lawmakers’ letter says.

???"The above allegations are alarming and, if true, show Mr. Barr and Mr. Durham misled the American people, abused their prosecutorial powers, and corrupted the Department of Justice to pursue a false political narrative," they added.

???Lieu and Goldman want the Justice Department to determine whether Barr and Durham violated any laws, regulations or legal ethics.

???For similar reasons, former Trump attorney John Eastman faces the possibility of disbarment in California for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential victory of Joe Biden.

???Last week, the State Bar of California filed disciplinary charges against Eastman that?accuse him of ethics violations for advising Trump on how to overturn the 2020 election by alleging election fraud.

???Eastman authored a memo with a plan for then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify several states’ Electoral College votes when Congress met to certify the election on Jan. 6, 2021. Pence declined to comply with the memo’s suggestions and no election fraud was found during later investigations.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Mayor Signs Bill to Make

Marijuana Easier to Buy and Sell

???Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser last week signed into law a bill that expands the availability of medical marijuana to local residents.

???It doubles the number of dispensaries and makes licenses to sell cannabis products more accessible.

???Cannabis possession is medically and recreationally legalized in the District of Columbia but recreational sales remain illegal. Only licensed vendors can sell it.

???"Fundamentally, this legislation is about making it easier for medical cannabis entities to do business by relaxing restrictions thought necessary and desirable over a decade ago," according to a 223-page December D.C. Council committee report on the legislation.

???The law allows two marijuana dispensary licenses per ward – up from one now – for a total of 16. In addition, medical cannabis can be delivered to homes by licensed couriers.

???Although other states also are loosening restrictions on marijuana, the District of Columbia’s law is different from many others for its “social equity” provisions.

???Social equity in the law is intended to eliminate injustices created by criminalization of marijuana.

???One provision restricts criminal conviction records for determining eligibility for licenses to grow, make or dispense cannabis products. Instead, it uses an "individualized approach" that balances factors like evidence of rehabilitation, employment history and whether the previous offense might be relevant for a license.

???Other social equity provisions give preference to low and middle-income applicants for the licenses.

???Another even more liberal marijuana law is pending before the D.C. Council. Called the Comprehensive Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Act of 2023, it would legalize and regulate the sale of recreational cannabis.

???It also would authorize reparations between $5,000 and $80,000 to people arrested, convicted or imprisoned for cannabis-related offenses before possession and personal use were legalized in 2015.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Maryland Bill to Livestream Court Hearings

Gains Support from Singer Fiona Apple

???A bill pending in the Maryland General Assembly to broaden public access to remote viewing of criminal court proceedings is gaining notoriety with support from singer-songwriter Fiona Apple.

???Apple has joined with the nonprofit group Courtwatch PG to push for legislation that would expand Internet streaming of court proceedings statewide.

???Currently, video of the proceedings is available only for Prince George’s County.

???The bill in Maryland runs counter to many remote viewing trends in courts nationwide.

???Although remote viewing of hearings became common during the worst of COVID-19, many courts are shutting down their live-streaming over the Internet as the pandemic eases.

???"We're trying to make sure that we can keep court-watching and have good access where we can hear what's going on in courts — because we all know that there's some bad s - - - that's going on in the courts," Apple said in a video posted online.

???She urged her fans to contact their Maryland delegates to encourage their support for the bills, H.B. 133 and S.B. 43.

???Courtwatch PG is one of several advocacy groups promoting the bills. They monitor arraignment proceedings in Prince George's County, which includes collecting data and watching how bail is set.

???Apple, who rose to fame with her song "Criminal" and the album "Fetch the Bolt Cutters," has volunteered with Courtwatch PG for the past two years. She lives in New York but started watching Maryland court proceedings when Prince George’s County started livestreaming them during the pandemic.

???Courtwatch PG already has brought to light a tendency of courts to keep people jailed for weeks or months after they were cleared for release by a judge. The pending lawsuit of Frazier v. Prince George's County says people approved for release make up one-third of the county’s jail population.

???Apple testified before the General Assembly last year in favor of the proposed live streaming of court proceedings.

???She said she observed defendants who remained jailed because they could not afford bail even after they were not considered dangerous or a flight risk, which violates Maryland bail guidelines. Other times, she said defendants were jailed because the court could not find an interpreter.

???Apple testified that some defendants were jailed without access to life-saving medication they needed. Some police officers were called to testify who were on the state attorney's "do not call list," she said.

???"This is all being done in the people's name," Apple said. "They deserve to see it too."

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

House Votes to Repeal

Two Controversial D.C. Council Bills

???The U.S. House of Representatives voted Thursday to repeal two bills approved by the District of Columbia Council in a move that inflamed city officials' resentment about federal control over local issues.

???One of the bills would have allowed non-citizens of the United States to vote in local elections. The other sought to update Washington’s more than century old criminal code but with sentences that are lighter than conservatives believe are justified.

???The House vote also represented opposition by the newly-elected Republican majority against the Democratic stronghold found in the D.C. Council.

???The Biden administration said it opposed congressional intervention but did not say the president would veto the resolution.

???It was the first time in more than three decades the federal government has used its constitutional authority to override the District of Columbia’s home rule. The dispute also is increasing calls among D.C. politicians for statehood.?

???Before the vote, Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., criticized the bill that would give non-citizens a right to vote in local elections, even if they are illegal immigrants.

???“Voting is a core tenet of what it means to be a citizen of this great country,” Langworthy said. “And this so-called voting rights law actually dilutes the rights of the American citizens and devalues what citizenship actually means.”

???Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, criticized the rewrite of the criminal code as dangerously soft on crime.

???“I’ve had many constituents and people who live in D.C. raise the issue about the safety and crime,” Roy said. “It’s not an unimportant issue, I think, for the vast majority of Americans who want their capital city to be safe.”

???The threat of a congressional repeal prompted Mayor Muriel Bowser to say she would reintroduce the criminal code bill with changes that are less likely to offend conservatives.

???Bowser (D) says she agrees with “95 percent” of the new criminal code but raised concerns over provisions that call for jury trials in nearly all misdemeanor cases and reduce maximum penalties for illegal gun possession and other offenses.?

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.?

Judge Suggests New Strategy

To Revive Federal Abortion Rights

???A judge in Washington, D.C., this week suggested a new legal strategy to revive a federal right to abortion.

???U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the 13th Amendment could be interpreted to mean women have a constitutional right to abortion. The 13th Amendment bans slavery and “involuntary servitude.”?

???Last year, the Supreme Court invoked the 14th Amendment to conclude the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, thereby turning it over to each state to decide independently. Twenty-four states have instituted various degrees of bans on abortion since the ruling.

???The 14th Amendment prohibits the government from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

???Kollar-Kotelly said the Supreme Court limited itself to discussing the 14th Amendment because it was the only issue the parties to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization mentioned in their court filings.

???If they had presented different arguments, “it is entirely possible that the Court might have held in Dobbs that some other provision of the Constitution provided a right to access reproductive services had that issue been raised,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in a court order. “However, it was not raised.”

???“Of those provisions that might contain some right to access to such services, the Thirteenth Amendment has received substantial attention among scholars and, briefly, in one federal Court of Appeals decision,” she said.

???The judge’s order was part of a criminal case against anti-abortion activist Lauren Handy.

???Handy was one of nine activists charged last March with civil rights crimes after they forced their way into a Washington, D.C., abortion clinic and blocked the doors. Handy gained entry after making an appointment under a fake name, according to police.

???Handy is free on bond while awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy against rights and abortion clinic access obstruction.

???Weeks after she was charged, police were called to her home near Capitol Hill on a tip about a biohazard. Inside, they found five fetuses.

???Although Handy is not accused of harming the fetuses while they were alive and no additional charges were filed against her, the local community expressed outrage in media reports.

???Handy’s attorneys later filed a motion to dismiss the civil rights charges against her. Kollar-Kotelly’s order this week responded to their court filing.

???The judge declined to dismiss the charges. Instead, she ordered the attorneys to submit additional evidence by next month on whether any provisions of the Constitution “could confer a right to abortion.”

???Her order appears to open the door for additional lawsuits over abortion rights.

???One citation to authority in her order was a 1990 paper by a Northwestern University School of Law professor who wrote that abortion rights were implied by the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude.

???“When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to ‘involuntary servitude’ in violation” of that amendment,” says the paper written by Andrew Koppelman.

???In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in 1995 overruled a lower court judge who characterized a challenge to Utah’s abortion law as frivolous when it cited 13th Amendment rights.

???“Without expressing a view on the merits of the involuntary servitude argument, we hold that it is not frivolous,” the appeals court’s ruling said.

???For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.