Rep. LaMonica McIver, moving to dismiss charges, asks why she’s treated differently from Jan. 6 rioters
Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-Newark), under indictment for allegedly assaulting federal officers during a May 9 visit to an immigrant detention facility, filed a flurry of motions challenging the legitimacy of the government’s case against her late last week, including one that highlights the contrast between her treatment and that of the January 6 rioters whose charges were dismissed by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department.
The first-term congresswoman filed two separate motions to dismiss the charges she faces: one that argues she’s facing selective prosecution on political grounds – differing sharply, it contends, from the current administration’s lenient treatment of those charged with January 6 crimes – and another that argues the charges relate to protected legislative acts she performed as a member of Congress. Allowing the case to continue, McIver’s attorneys wrote, would “deter other Members from conducting legitimate oversight and imperil the separation of powers.”
A third motion argues that critical statements the government has made outside the courtroom unlawfully assume McIver’s guilt and impede her right to a fair trial; she asked the court to order federal officials to stop discussing her case in such ways. And a final, fourth motion accuses prosecutors of failing to hand over all relevant evidence in the case, and asks the judge to order prosecutors to provide further video and documents.
“I have full confidence in the arguments we’re making – the briefs speak for themselves,” McIver said in a brief statement on the filings.
Friday was the deadline for pre-trial motions, according to a schedule established earlier this summer. Prosecutors have until next Monday to respond to McIver’s motions. Oral arguments on the motions are expected on September 9.
The first-term congresswoman filed two separate motions to dismiss the charges she faces: one that argues she’s facing selective prosecution on political grounds – differing sharply, it contends, from the current administration’s lenient treatment of those charged with January 6 crimes – and another that argues the charges relate to protected legislative acts she performed as a member of Congress. Allowing the case to continue, McIver’s attorneys wrote, would “deter other Members from conducting legitimate oversight and imperil the separation of powers.”
A third motion argues that critical statements the government has made outside the courtroom unlawfully assume McIver’s guilt and impede her right to a fair trial; she asked the court to order federal officials to stop discussing her case in such ways. And a final, fourth motion accuses prosecutors of failing to hand over all relevant evidence in the case, and asks the judge to order prosecutors to provide further video and documents.
“I have full confidence in the arguments we’re making – the briefs speak for themselves,” McIver said in a brief statement on the filings.
Friday was the deadline for pre-trial motions, according to a schedule established earlier this summer. Prosecutors have until next Monday to respond to McIver’s motions. Oral arguments on the motions are expected on September 9.
70-79, M
