Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President-elect JD Vance says those answerable for violence in the course of the Capitol riot “obviously” mustn’t be pardoned, as President-elect Donald Trump vows to make use of his clemency powers on behalf of a lot of those trying have on January 6, 2021 to overturn the outcomes of the election, which Trump lost.

Vance insisted in an interview on “Fox News Sunday” that the pardon issue was “very simple,” saying those that “protested peacefully” must be pardoned and “if you committed violence that day, of course you should.” not be pardoned.” He later said there was a “bit of a gray area” in some cases.

Trump said he would pardon rioters on “day one” of his presidency, which begins Jan. 20. “Most likely I will do it very quickly,” he said recently on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He added: “These people have suffered long and hard. And there may be some exceptions. I have to look. But you know, if someone was radical, they would be crazy.”

More than 1,500 people have been charged with federal crimes in reference to the siege, which injured greater than 100 cops and compelled lawmakers into hiding as they met to certify Democrat Joe Biden's 2020 victory.

Hundreds of people that didn’t take part in destruction or violence were charged only with misdemeanor charges of illegally entering the Capitol. Others were charged with crimes including assault for beating cops. Leaders of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys extremist groups were convicted of seditious conspiracy after prosecutors tried to make use of force to stop the peaceful transfer of power from Republican incumbent Trump to Biden.

In a post on X, Vance responded to criticism from supporters of the Capitol rioters that his position didn’t go far enough to release all those convicted. “I’ve been defending these guys for years,” he said.

“For the president to say he will look at every single case (and for me to say the same thing) is not a step backwards,” Vance said. “I assure you, we care about people who are unjustly incarcerated. Yes, that includes those who were provoked, and that includes those who received a trash trial.”

Originally published: January 12, 2025 at 10:35 am PST

Political abyssesWars, oppression… it's easy to feel hopeless and helpless once you watch these dark forces. In the face of a lot devastation, could any of us ever make an actual difference?

Given the magnitude of the world's problems, it would feel just like the small acts of human connection and solidarity over which you will have control are akin to putting Band-Aids on bullet wounds. It may be naive to assume that small actions could make a worldwide difference.

As a psychologist and researcher of human relationships and audience, I used to be inspired to listen to musicians Hozier provide a counterpoint at a performance this 12 months. “The small gestures of love and solidarity we offer each other can have a big impact…,” he told the group. “I believe that the core of people is generally good – I really believe that. I will die on this hill.”

I'm completely happy to report that the science agrees with him.

Research shows that individual acts of kindness and connection can have an actual impact on global change when those acts are collective. This applies on multiple levels: between individuals, between people and institutions, and between cultures.

This relational micro-activism is a robust force for change – and serves as an antidote to hopelessness because, unlike global problems, these small actions are throughout the individual's control.

Abstract becomes real through relationships

Theoretically, the concept small, interpersonal actions have large effects may be explained by what psychologists call cognitive dissonance: the discomfort you’re feeling when your actions and beliefs don't match.

For example, imagine two individuals who like one another. One believes that fighting climate change is crucial, the opposite believes that climate change is a political ploy. Cognitive dissonance occurs: they like one another but disagree. People long for it cognitive balanceThe more the 2 like one another, the more motivated they can be to take heed to one another.

So, in response to this model, the more you strengthen your relationships through acts of connection, the more likely you’re to empathize with these other individual perspectives. When these efforts are collective, they’ll strengthen understanding, compassion and community in society at large. Topics like war and oppression can feel overwhelming and abstract, however the abstract becomes real once you connect with someone you care about.

So does this theory delay in terms of real data?

Small acts of bonding change attitudes

Numerous studies reveal the ability of individual acts of connection to drive larger change.

For example, researchers studying the political divide within the United States found that participants who self-identified as Democrats or Republicans “disliked” people in the opposite group primarily for the next reasons. negative assumptions concerning the other person's morals. People also said they valued morals comparable to fairness, respect, loyalty and the will to avoid harming others.

I deliberately miss which faction prefers which characteristics – these all sound like positive attributes, don't they? Although participants believed they disliked one another for political reasons, all of them also valued qualities that benefited a relationship.

One interpretation of those results is that the more people regularly show one another that they’re loyal friends and community members who want to stop harm from coming to others, the more they’ll mitigate major social and political disagreements.

Even more compelling, one other study found that Hungarian and Romanian students – people from ethnic groups with a history of social tensions – reported also maintaining strong friendships with one another reported improved attitudes toward the opposite group. A difficult friendship with someone from the opposite group actually harmed attitudes toward the opposite ethnic group as an entire. Again, the care Quality of relationshipsEven on an objectively small scale, it had a powerful impact on reducing large-scale tensions.

In one other study, researchers examined prejudice toward what psychologists call an outgroup: a gaggle to which one doesn’t belong, whether as a consequence of ethnicity, political affiliation, or just preference for dogs over cats.

They asked participants to think concerning the positive qualities of an individual they knew or about their very own positive qualities. When participants wrote concerning the positive qualities of one other person reasonably than themselves, they later reported on them less prejudice against an out-group – even when the person they were writing about had no connection to that outgroup. Here, approaching the appreciation of others reasonably than moving away from prejudice was an efficient approach to change preconceived beliefs.

So small acts of connection can change personal attitudes. But can they really influence societies?

From one to 1 to society-wide

Each person is embedded in his own network with the people and the world around him, what psychologists call their very own network social ecology. Compassionate change on every level Changing an individual's social ecology – internal, interpersonal or structural – can affect all other levels in a type of positive feedback loop or upward spiral.

For example each System-level anti-discrimination programs in schools and interpersonal support between students interacts to shape the college environment for college students from historically marginalized groups. Here too, individual actions play a key role on this positive Domino effects.

Even as a student of human relationships, I even have been surprised at how much progress I and others have made in understanding one another through simply caring for each other. But what are small acts of connection but acts of strengthening relationships that strengthen communities that influence societies?

In much of my clinical work I exploit a model called social practice – or “intentional community building” – as a type of therapy for people recovering from serious mental illnesses comparable to schizophrenia. And if conscious community constructing can address a number of the most debilitating conditions of the human psyche, then I imagine that, broadly speaking, it could also help address essentially the most debilitating conditions of human societies.

Simply put, science supports the concept small-scale convergence can bring about change. I’ll die on this hill too.

On Sept. 6, East Palo Alto police launched an investigation into allegations that 54-year-old James Edward Fitch of Stockton “committed lewd acts with a minor at his place of work,” Police Chief Jeff Liu said in a news release.

According to Liu and the college's website, Fitch served as the college's campus relations coordinator.

Liu said investigators had “established sufficient probable cause to arrest Fitch. He is charged with three counts of sexual assault of a minor and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual assault.”

On Monday, police, in cooperation with the United States Marshals Service, executed a $500,000 arrest warrant and a search of Fitch's apartment, Liu said.

Fitch was expected to be taken to the San Mateo County Jail.

Commander David Santos, a police department spokesman, said he couldn’t provide further details in regards to the case, including when the alleged crimes occurred, since the investigation was still ongoing.

“We wanted to share what we had so the public is aware of the situation, and if anyone has information that may be helpful to the investigation, we encourage them to share it with us,” Santos said in an email to this news organization.

Gina Sudaria, superintendent of the Ravenswood City School District, didn’t immediately reply to a call and email in search of details about Fitch's employment status.

Anyone with information in regards to the case can contact Detective Sgt. Jose Luaorozco at 650-629-4538. Those wishing to stay anonymous can call or text 650-409-6792 or email epa@tipnow.org.

Check back later for updates.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a president, including former President Donald Trump“shall not be prosecuted for the exercise of his core constitutional powers and shall be entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”

The Decision is “super nuanced”, as one legal scholar told The Conversation shortly after the choice was announced on July 1, 2024.

While a president enjoys total immunity within the exercise of his “central constitutional powers,” a sitting or former president also has “presumptive immunity” for all official acts. This immunity, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the bulk opinion, “extends to the outer scope of the President's official responsibilities and includes acts so long as they are not obviously or palpably outside his authority.”

“There is no immunity for unofficial acts,” the court ruled.

The results of the vote was 6-3, because the court’s three liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – Majority opinion within the event of a dissenting opinion.

“Today's decision to grant criminal immunity to former presidents transforms the institution of the presidency. It mocks the fundamental principle of our Constitution and our system of government that no one is above the law,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion.

The federal charges against Trump for his actions to overturn the 2020 presidential election will now be sent back to lower courts to come to a decision which of the federal charges against Trump could be pursued. But one end result is obvious – this decision could have significant implications for presidential power and the separation of powers in government.

Until all of the nuances of the choice are analyzed by constitutional lawyers, listed below are 4 stories to assist readers higher understand the arguments upfront of the choice and what was at stake on this case.

1. Laying the foundations

Trump claimed he was immune from federal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election because he was already president on the time.

“Trump’s argument focused on the claim … that a president cannot be legally prosecuted for his official conduct or actions taken in the exercise of his office,” wrote Claire B. Wofforda political scientist on the College of Charleston.

Since 1982, in a case dating back to Richard Nixon's presidency, presidents have been immune from civil suits due to their official actions, Wofford explained, and Trump sought to expand that immunity protection. But that was a tall order, Wofford wrote:

“Protecting the President from the inconveniences of civil litigation is one thing. Allowing the President, who is responsible under Article 2 of the Constitution for faithfully executing the laws, to break those laws with impunity is quite another.”

In fact, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in December 2023 that Trump didn’t have the “divine right of kings” to flee criminal responsibility. And a federal appeals court agreed with that call in February 2024. Trump appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

---

Read more: Trump was not a king and could be prosecuted for crimes committed during his presidency: Appeals court sets limits on immunity

---

2. An inconsistent claim

Trump's claim was an uphill battle. Stephanie Lindquista constitutional lawyer at Arizona State University, stated:

“In several lawsuits he filed throughout the 2020 election difficult the outcomes, Trump himself said he was acting 'in his personal capability as a candidate' and never in his official capability as president.

“Now, however, Trump is claiming that his comments on 'matters of public interest' were within the scope of his presidential duties, whether or not he was a candidate on January 6.”

This inconsistency, in addition to the final principle of the Constitution that nobody is above the law, made it difficult to argue Trump's position.

---

Read more: Trump claims the Constitution grants him immunity – here's why judges and Supreme Court may disagree

---

3. A choice that takes a protracted time to return

Wofforda constitutional law scholar on the College of Charleston, noted before the Supreme Court's decision in July that there was public concern in regards to the time it took the court to make a choice. But she said that this delay was within the service of democracy reasonably than a partisan maneuver:

“When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it is inevitably answering a very difficult legal question. If the answers were clear, the case would never have been the subject of litigation before the Supreme Court.”

And the judges’ role in deciding the case is crucial for the nation, she wrote:

“Given the potentially unconstitutional actions Trump has threatened to take if re-elected, the country will need a strong and respected Supreme Court in the near future. Those angry at the court should actually be very happy that it is business as usual. If it were not, their fears that Trump will get away with anything may actually come true.”

---

Read more: Supreme Court's slow decision on Trump's immunity is the alternative of politics

---

4. What this implies for the longer term

Earlier this spring Wofford noted some worrying signs throughout the oral hearing before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2024:

“Several justices from all ideological camps expressed deep concern about the practical implications of granting or denying a president some degree of immunity.”

For example, Wofford noted:

“Justice Samuel Alito seemed genuinely concerned that the president might face political persecution if he were not protected by immunity. … On the other hand, … (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson) said a president could take office 'knowing that he could not expect punishment for committing crimes.'”

Wofford expected the justices would seek to grant either full immunity or no immunity in any respect – and subsequently allow Trump's federal case for attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election to proceed, since lots of his actions were private and unofficial. Although that too posed a risk, Wofford wrote:

“I wish there were some other means by which the court could resolve this issue, and that so many people did not feel that the fate of our government and the stability of our system were at stake. … If the court does not make it clear and unambiguous that the president is not above the law, then I think we have a serious problem.”

---

Read more: Trump's Supreme Court immunity arguments highlight dangers — as prosecutors stress greater risk of waiving legal accountability

---

This story is a summary of articles from The Conversation archives.