DIRS.INFO top alerts submit data jurnalism about API
login
Top related persons:
Trump - 3 Donald Trump - 2 Fischer - 1 Joseph Fischer - 1 Fischer corruptly - 1 Mr - 1 Carl Nichols - 1 Fischer wasn’t - 1
Top related locs:
United States Washington
Top related orgs:
Capitol - 3 Prosecutors - 1 Republican - 1 Mr - 1 Federal - 1 Count - 1

Search resuls for: "Randall D. Eliason"


4 mentions found


☆ Opinion | Jan. 6 Rioters Should Not Catch a Break From the Supreme Court
  + stars: | 2024-04-23 | by ( Randall D. Eliason | ) www.nytimes.com   time to read: +2 min
Imagine that during a Supreme Court argument, protesters angry about the case storm the court building. Has the court proceeding been obstructed or impeded? Prosecutors charge that by participating in the Capitol riot, Mr. Fischer corruptly obstructed and impeded the joint congressional proceeding to certify the election, in violation of 1512(c)(2). More than 300 other Jan. 6 rioters have faced the same charge. Because Mr. Fischer wasn’t charged with impairing the availability or integrity of any physical evidence, Judge Nichols dismissed the charge.
Persons: Fischer, Donald Trump, Joseph Fischer, Fischer corruptly, Mr, Trump, Carl Nichols, Fischer wasn’t, Judge Nichols Organizations: Capitol, Prosecutors Locations: United States, Washington
☆ Opinion | Why Judges in the Trump Jan. 6 Trial Need a Rocket Docket
  + stars: | 2023-11-28 | by ( Randall D. Eliason | ) www.nytimes.com   time to read: +1 min
It’s possible that his criminal liability for the events leading up to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol will remain unresolved. And whether it happens will be decided by a relative handful of federal jurists — including a number appointed by Mr. Trump himself. Of the four criminal cases pending against Mr. Trump, the federal election interference prosecution in Washington currently has the best chance of going to trial before the 2024 presidential vote. The trial date is set for March 4. But legal developments that are out of her hands now threaten to derail that schedule: Expected pretrial appeals could push the trial date past the November election.
Persons: Donald Trump, it’s, Richard Nixon, Trump, Tanya Chutkan Organizations: Republican, Capitol, Mr, Federal Locations: Washington
☆ Why Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 Trump Indictment Is So Smart - The New York Times
  + stars: | 2023-08-02 | by ( Randall D. Eliason | ) www.nytimes.com   time to read: +2 min
But when it comes to Mr. Trump and the senior people around him, this obstruction charge is much broader than the assault on the Capitol. And aiding and abetting is part of the theory of the obstruction charge in Count 3. It’s a belt-and-suspenders approach: If a legal issue arises that weakens or eliminates one charge, the others remain, and the case can continue. One charge that was not included in the indictment falls under 18 U.S.C. This charge was part of the referral from the Jan. 6 committee.
Persons: Trump, Smith Organizations: Capitol, Count Locations: United States
☆ Opinion | Why the Supreme Court Is Blind to Its Own Corruption
  + stars: | 2023-05-18 | by ( Randall D. Eliason | ) www.nytimes.com   time to read: +2 min
The landmark case is the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. A five-justice majority — including Justice Thomas — struck down decades-old restrictions on independent campaign expenditures by corporations, holding that they violated the companies’ free speech rights. The government’s legitimate interest in fighting corruption, the court held, is limited to direct quid pro quo deals, in which a public official makes a specific commitment to act in exchange for something of value. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of adopting a “crabbed view of corruption” that the court itself had rejected in an earlier case. But the decision didn’t come out of nowhere: The court has often been unanimous in its zeal for curtailing criminal corruption laws.
0 next >>
Total: 4