CRIME
Listen: Merrick Garland on Any Potential Prosecution of Trump – ‘We Are Not Avoiding Cases That Are Political’
One year into his term as U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland is once again responding to an almost overwhelming call from the left and from some Democratic elected officials – including the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack – to prosecute Donald Trump, the former president.
And in a rare moment the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is answering his critics – very carefully – but serving up essentially the same response as he did earlier.
“We are not avoiding cases that are political or cases that are controversial or sensitive,” Garland told NPR in an interview published Thursday. “What we are avoiding is making decisions on a political basis, on a partisan basis.”
The Select Committee investigating the attack on the Capitol, the insurrection, and the assault on our very democracy last week filed in court what prosecutors might see as damning felony charges against Donald Trump, including “criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” and corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.
Garland explained the DOJ’s process:
“We begin with the cases that are right in front of us with the overt actions and then we build from there. And that is a process that we will continue to build until we hold everyone accountable who committed criminal acts with respect to January 6.”
In January, facing criticism from those who believe Trump and his associates should be charged and questioning why they have not been, Garland said:
“The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators at any level accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.”
Today, those looking for signs that Trump will face justice might take some solace in Garland’s non-committal hint: “This had to do with the interference with the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another. And it doesn’t get more important than that.”
You can listen to the interview below, and read the full report at NPR.
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Thursday that, if convicted, the Tesla vandals who lit the electric cars and charging stations ablaze could get up to 20 years in prison.
“The days of committing crimes without consequence have ended,” Bondi said. “Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars.”
Bondi announced the charges against three alleged Tesla vandals. All of the defendants are accused of using Molotov cocktails. Two defendants, one in Salem, Oregon and another in Loveland, Colorado, allegedly attacked Tesla dealerships. A third allegedly burned Tesla charging stations in Charleston, South Carolina.
READ MORE: Fox News Reporter Challenges Trump on Promoting Tesla While Americans Are ‘Struggling’
Though Bondi’s statement did not identify any of the defendants or reveal the charges levied against them, the Department of Justice said the penalty ranged from five to 20 years in prison. Bondi has previously characterized the attacks on Tesla dealerships as “nothing short of domestic terrorism” according to ABC News.
The three anonymous defendants cited by Bondi are not the only alleged Tesla vandals. Earlier this week, a Tesla service center in Las Vegas was hit, as was a dealership in Kansas City, Missouri according to Electrek.
Tesla dealerships have seen an increase of protests as many left-leaning figures are calling for boycotts against the company. Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, is also the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Despite the name, DOGE is not an official department of the U.S. government, as it was not established by Congress. DOGE is behind the recent mass firings of government workers.
Outside of the peaceful protests, vandals have spray-painted anti-DOGE and anti-Tesla graffiti on Tesla cars and dealerships. The number of arsons at dealerships has also been increasing of late, leading Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner to suggest that arsonists could face the death penalty, according to Mediaite.
“What happens if there’s someone in one of these cars they blow up? That can happen! That becomes murder! Or worse. Terrorism plus! And I know that on January 20th, the president signed into law, into, through an executive order, restoring the death penalty. Do you think this sort of thing… And I hate to think it! People leave their children and pets in cars. I mean, you don’t know! This is deadly dangerous stuff these liberal protesters are playing with!” Faulkner said.
There have been no reports of Teslas being lit on fire with anyone nearby. The Teslas set on fire have primarily been at dealerships after business hours, times when no one would be in the cars, making Faulkner’s scenario unlikely.
Image via Reuters
A three-judge panel has upheld the ruling that awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million from President-elect Donald Trump. Two days prior, Trump shared a meme saying she should go to jail.
The ruling came from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Manhattan-based court upheld all of the original ruling. Trump’s lawyers had “not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings. Further, he has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial,” the judges wrote.
Carroll said that Trump raped her at a Bergdorf Goodman store dressing room. Trump denied the claim, and accused Carroll of perpetrating a hoax to promote her book. He repeatedly said that not only did he not know her, she wasn’t his “type.”
READ MORE: E. Jean Carroll Talks About ‘Zero’ Trump in Court and Reveals How She Will Use Jury Award
The original ruling found that though the standard of “rape” was not reached, Trump was liable for sexual assault. The court awarded Carroll $2.02 million for sexual assault, plus an additional $2.98 million for defamation, according to Reuters.
In the appeal, Trump’s lawyers objected to allowing testimony from other women who said Trump sexually assaulted them. His lawyers also objected to allowing jurors to hear the infamous Access Hollywood tape that went public in 2016 where Trump bragged about being able to grab women by their genitalia. On the tape, Trump says, “When you’re a star, they let you do it.”
The appellate court ruled that this evidence was indeed legal for the jury to hear.
“This Court has long taken an ‘inclusionary’ approach… under which other act evidence is admissible unless it is introduced for the sole purpose of showing a defendant’s bad character,” the court wrote.
Two days before the ruling, Trump shared a meme on his Truth Social account, which suggested Carroll should go for jail for making false accusations.
The meme reshared by Trump on Saturday. (Screenshot/Truth Social)
The meme reads “Should a woman go to jail for falsely accusing a man of rape? Retruth if you want justice for Trump.”
This meme could prove problematic for Trump. Trump’s been hit by additional lawsuits from Carroll for defamation, when he continued to say she made up her assault story. This January, a court ruled that Trump had to pay her an additional $83.3 million for defamation; the appeal in that case is still pending.
The case was at the center of another scandal. This December, ABC News was criticized for deciding to settle with Trump for $16 million when he sued for defamation. That case hinged on a March 2024 report from George Stephanopoulos that said Trump had been found liable for rape.
Some legal experts criticized ABC News for settling, saying that it could have won the case. However, some reporting suggests that ABC News was worried about what could be uncovered during the discovery phase of the trial.
Image via Shutterstock
Randall Adjessom, 16, was shot to death last year by the Mobile, Alabama Police Department’s S.W.A.T. team. The police were looking for marijuana allegedly owned by Adjessom’s older brother—who not only wasn’t there, but didn’t live at that home.
The Adjessom family filed suit last week against the Mobile Police Department. The officers shot Adjessom four times during a no-knock raid, according to the Associated Press. The no-knock warrant was issued as part of a investigation against his older brother for marijuana possession and distribution, despite not living at the address raided. No one at the address, which included Adjessom’s mother, aunt, grandmother and sisters, was a suspect.
Police say that Adjessom was armed with a laser-sighted pistol, according to WALA-TV. His family doesn’t dispute that he had a gun, but said it was “to protect his mother, grandmother, aunt, and sisters from the unknown intruders breaching his childhood home,” according to the Miami Herald. As soon as he saw the intruders were police officers, he put his hands up, the lawsuit said. An officer then shot him four times in the torso. Police body camera footage confirms that Adjessom had his hands up, the Herald reported.
“Although Police Officer Defendants were holding Randall’s mother, grandmother, aunt, and sisters in a room just feet from where 16-year-old Randall lay—without any cause to do so—Police Officer Defendants never told his family that they had shot the child or that he was bleeding out in the hallway outside his bedroom door. As a result, Randall’s family, including Plaintiff, had no opportunity to render Randall aid, take him to a hospital, or call an ambulance; they also had no opportunity to say goodbye to their son, grandson, nephew, and brother,” the lawsuit read.
After shooting him, officers allegedly offered no aid, instead stepping over him to clear the rest of the home. The police didn’t try to disarm him, and instead just dressed his wounds for 40 minutes after the home had been cleared, the suit says. The family lived just eight minutes away from a hospital, but officers didn’t call for medical services for at least 40 minutes.
Attorneys for the Adjessom family, Grant & Eisenhofer, say the teen’s shooting is part of a “systemic pattern of [the Mobile Police Department] using excessive force against citizens of color; in particular, young Black boys and men.”
The attorneys cite the MPD Police Chief Paul Prine of telling officers “I’m not concerned with what the media and public thinks about the police. F**k the public,” upon being named chief in 2021. Prine was fired earlier this year following complaints from the city, according to WPMI-TV. Prine is suing Mobile, alleging he was fired in retaliation for complaining about the Mobile chief of staff.
Image by Shutterstock
Trump Doubles Down Calling Egg Prices ‘Too Low’ as Costs Soar to Record Highs
‘Taunting SCOTUS’: Concerns Mount Over ‘Openly Contemptuous’ White House
Trump’s Latest Target: The Watchdog That Keeps Suing Him
‘Things Like This Take Place’: Trump Shrugs Off Mass Shooting Despite Once Being a Target
