The border wall fiasco continues

Insurrectionist acquitted

A federal judge on Wednesday acquitted a New Mexico man of misdemeanor charges that he illegally entered the U.S. Capitol and engaged in disorderly conduct after he walked into the building during last year's riot.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden issued the verdict from the bench after hearing testimony without a jury in the case against Matthew Martin. McFadden, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump, acquitted Martin of all four counts for which he was charged.

McFadden said it was reasonable for Martin to believe that outnumbered police officers allowed him and others to enter the Capitol through the Rotunda doors on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge also said Martin's actions were "about as minimal and non-serious" as anyone who was at the Capitol that day.

Martin is the third Capitol riot defendant whose case has been resolved by a trial. He is the first of the three to be acquitted of all charges that he faced.

  NPR

While I can appreciate that all of those things may be true, there is another thing that's true that should require some kind of conviction. And that is the reason he went there. He went into the capitol in an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power to the legitimate winner of the presidency. Intent counts for something in all criminal trials, as it should.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

No ruling on Comey's request to quash a subpoena

A district court judge on Friday postponed issuing a ruling on former FBI Director James Comey’s effort to quash a GOP-issued subpoena.

Judge Trevor McFadden gave the two sides the weekend to provide additional information about their arguments. The court will reconvene Monday at 10 a.m. for a ruling.

Comey on Thursday sought to quash the subpoena for closed-door testimony, arguing that House Republicans would seek to “peddle a distorted, partisan political narrative about the Clinton and Russia investigations through selective leaks” if he was not interviewed in public.

Comey’s attorneys Vincent Cohen and David Kelley argued in the motion that the subpoena “exceeds a proper legislative purpose, is issued in violation of House rules, and unduly prejudices and harasses the witness.”

[...]

Thomas Hungar, the general counsel for the House of Representatives, challenged the legitimacy of Comey’s legal efforts, arguing that it would be unprecedented for the courts to interfere with their efforts to subpoena witnesses.

Hungar says the federal government has “absolute” sovereign immunity in a civil suit and that even a court-issued stay would be viewed as interfering in congressional proceedings.

  The Hill

I don't get it. Is McFadden saying they didn't provide good arguments? Enough arguments? Is he looking for one side to give him better cover for a decision he wants to make? Was he just wanting to go home without having to think about it?

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  Comey dropped the request to quash.

In a three-paragraph joint court filing Sunday, Comey’s lawyers [...] withdrew his request to a federal judge to quash the subpoena to testify before the House judiciary and oversight committees, writing, “Mr. Comey appreciates the Court’s attention to the above-captioned matter, but has now reached an acceptable accommodation with U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary for voluntary testimony.”

Lawyers for the House consented to Comey’s move to drop the case.

Comey agreed to sit for a voluntary interview on Friday under terms that include that “so long as the interview proceeds as a voluntary interview, an FBI representative will be present to advise concerning the disclosure of FBI information,” said his lawyer David N. Kelley.

  WaPo