Chair of Senate Republican Caucus busted for DUI hit-and-run

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 06 Dec 2024 05:30:34 +0000

Inset: Sen. Ken Yager (Glynn County Detention Center). Background: Sen. Ken Yager speaking (WATE/YouTube).

A senator from Tennessee who was reelected this year and is the chairman of the state’s Senate Republican Caucus was arrested for suspicion of DUI after he allegedly committed a hit and run while driving a car with legislative plates that was paid for using his campaign account, according to cops and reports.

Sen. Ken Yager (R-Kingston) was caught driving drunk in Glynn County, Georgia, with an alleged blood alcohol concentration level of 0.14 — nearly double the state’s legal limit of 0.08 — on Tuesday evening at around 5 p.m., according to the Tennessee Lookout.

Authorities on Jekyll Island, a beach resort town off Georgia’s coast, received reports of a Ford Edge with Tennessee license plates and the words “KEY” on them that had just left the scene of a hit-and-run after failing to stop at a stop sign. Georgia State Troopers responded and found Yager, 77, in the parking lot of a grocery store, where he was already being evaluated by emergency medical services after tripping and falling, police say.

Troopers at the scene reported smelling a “distinct odor of alcohol” on the senator’s breath, prompting them to ask if he had anything to drink. “A couple glasses of wine previously in the day,” Yager allegedly told them.

The married father-of-two agreed to take a Breathalyzer and field sobriety test, which he allegedly failed, before being hauled away for DUI and the hit-and-run, the Tennessee Lookout reports. He refused to take a blood test.

Asked why he left the scene of the crash, Yager — who was on vacation — allegedly said “he thought everyone was fine” and claimed he “spoke with the other driver,” according to cops.

Finance records obtained by the Tennessee Lookout show that Yager uses his campaign account to foot the bill for his lease on the Ford Edge. In total, he has spent $22,888 in campaign funds so far on the “vehicle lease, car insurance, oil and tire maintenance, car washes, details and county vehicle registration fees” since purchasing it in 2022, the Lookout reports.

Yager’s license plates with the official state seal can be seen in video footage of Yager’s field sobriety test, which shows him having trouble standing. He released a statement after his arrest, calling what happened to him an “unfortunate incident.” Yager has since bonded out.

“On the advice of my attorney, I cannot discuss the particulars at this time,” Yager said. “I am and will continue to cooperate fully with authorities to bring this incident to an appropriate conclusion.”

First elected to the Tennessee Senate in 2006, Yager represents the counties of Campbell, Clay, Fentress, Macon, Morgan, Overton, Pickett, Roane and Scott. He was elected chair of the Senate Republican Caucus in 2018.

“My thoughts and prayers are with he and his family,” Lt. Gov. Randy McNally (R-Oak Ridge) said in a statement Thursday.

Yager won back his District 12 Senate seat last month in a landslide victory over independent candidate Charles Hutson II.

According to the Tennessee Lookout, if Yager gets indicted, Senate ethics rules require that he step down as caucus chair or file an appeal with the Ethics Committee for a hearing to argue for his position.

Attempts to reach the Senate Republican Caucus by Law&Crime on Thursday were unsuccessful, as were attempts to reach Yager’s office.

Source link

The post Chair of Senate Republican Caucus busted for DUI hit-and-run appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Republican AGs say Jack Smith’s office is unconstitutional

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 02 Nov 2024 21:33:06 +0000

Left: Special Counsel Jack Smith speaks about an August 2023 indictment of former President Donald Trump at a DOJ office in Washington (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File). Center: President Joe Biden delivers remarks on lowering the cost of prescription drugs, at NHTI Concord Community College, Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2024, in Concord, N.H. (AP Photo/Steven Senne). Right: Donald Trump speaks to members of the media before departing Manhattan criminal court, Monday, May 6, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, Pool).

In something not entirely unlike an “all hands” call to action, Republican attorneys general from 20 different states are now trying to convince a federal court of appeals that the Mar-a-Lago documents indictment against Donald Trump should remain dismissed.

The 33-page amici curiae — or friends of the court — filing was submitted late Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The motion purports to represent the states of Florida, Iowa, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, And West Virginia.

In yet another iteration of a sustained legal pile-on, the brief argues special counsel Jack Smith was appointed to his position “unlawfully” — in violation of strong, time-honored executive, or presidential, authority.

“[U]nlike a U.S. Attorney, Smith faces next-to-zero presidential accountability,” the brief reads. “He was not appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Nor is he subject to the plenary supervision of an official who was.”

The GOP elected officials say their constitutional argument is distinct from extant similar arguments — including those already made by the defense — that have to do with the Appointments Clause (and the closely-related Appropriations Clause.)

“Smith acted under regulations that authorize the exercise of core executive power unguided by the plenary control of the President or any principal officer accountable to him,” the motion reads. “Because those regulations violate Article II of the Constitution, Smith’s actions under them are invalid.”

As Law&Crime previously reported, including once earlier on Saturday, the amici’s arguments here are one more among many such efforts; on at least two federal dockets; and they are essentially a replay of a battle between various amici groups when the Mar-a-Lago case was being overseen by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

That fight began with Trump’s own defense citing the clauses in a February motion to dismiss. Then, right-of-center groups, law professors, and legal scholars argued against Smith’s appointment in a deluge of motions practice allowed by the district court. Oppositely, left-of-center law professors, historians, and legal scholars argued Smith was validly — and non-controversially — exercising his authority.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘The challenged appointment must be invalidated’: Conservative nonprofits join the fight against Jack Smith in 11th Circuit to try and affirm Mar-a-Lago case dismissal

The lower court, of course, famously ordered a kibosh on proceedings based on that novel understanding of the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution advanced by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The analysis offered by Thomas came in the landmark ruling where Chief Justice John Roberts issued a broad grant of presidential immunity to Trump.

Thomas was the only justice to cite the long-simmering Appointments Clause issue in an unfavorable light for the government in any of the opinions attached to Trump v. United States. The majority opinion actually lists several ways in which the appointments power inures to the executive’s benefit. Thomas was also the only justice to mention the phrase “Appointments Clause” directly.

In August, Smith filed his opening salvo in a bid to resuscitate the long-beleaguered case. Since then, the 45th president has raised the clauses in an effort to affirm the lower court’s dismissal of the case.

In the present motion, the Republican AGs are offering another separation of powers argument — though one that differs substantially from others that have previously been made before the 11th Circuit. The clauses-related arguments which have largely been essayed thus far in the case implicate the same field of constitutional theory but are not quite the same as what the attorneys general are saying here.

“[I]nherent in Article II’s vesting of the executive power in the President is the authority to control, and if necessary, remove subordinate executive officials at will,” the motion reads.

That, however, is not what Attorney General Merrick Garland purported to create when he imbued Smith with his title and power.

“Indeed, the avowed purpose of Special Counsel Smith’s appointment was to remove responsibility — and thus political accountability — for the investigations and prosecutions under his purview from the current Administration,” the brief continues.

And, the AGs argue, this precise effort to keep Smith wholly independent from the Biden administration has created something of an unconstitutional Frankenstein’s monster.

“The result: A single executive officer now unilaterally resolves massively consequential, politically fraught issues like whether to indict a former president and current presidential candidate and what position the United States will take as to whether and to what extent a President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution,” the brief goes on. “Article II does not give the Attorney General the authority to vest the executive power in Jack Smith.”

The motion offers an analogy to make their point:

No department head in the Executive Branch has the authority to do what the Attorney General has done in the special-counsel regulations. The Attorney General may no more create a new prosecutorial unit in the Department of Justice and place it under the control of a tenure-protected special counsel than may the Secretary of Defense create a new branch of the military and place it under the control of a tenure-protected branch chief. That would remain true even if the reason the Secretary did so was that the President had a conflict of interest because, for example, his son was a member of that branch deployed in a combat zone.

“It makes no difference if the President acquiesced in the relevant regulations at the time they were promulgated,” the brief continues. “A President is of course free to take a hands-off approach ‘in his dealings with subordinates,’ but he may not ‘bind his successors by diminishing their powers, nor can he escape responsibility for his choices by pretending that they are not his own.’ The Attorney General cannot do so either.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Republican AGs say Jack Smith’s office is unconstitutional appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Republican Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Chair of Senate Republican Caucus busted for DUI hit-and-run

Republican AGs say Jack Smith’s office is unconstitutional