Wow this bill is a mess.
‘‘(k) NO DETENTION FOR NONVIOLENT POLITICAL PROTESTERS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A person charged with a covered political protest offense, and not charged with any crime of violence (as such term is defined in section 16(a)) may not be detained under this section.
1) This is very sloppily drafted. "May not be detained under this section." is usually used to describe a limitation for a particular section. This is supposed to apply to other laws. But even assuming the technical fixes are done
2) This is the sort of thing Republicans rail against usually. The point of bail is primarily to ensure people show up for trial. That's especially important in federal cases since they by nature cross state lines. I do agree that bail should be more selectively applied, but this section would disallow judges to take into account flight risk as long as the crime is political.
‘‘(2) COVERED POLITICAL PROTEST OFFENSE 15 DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘covered political protest offense’ means an offense— ‘‘(A) arising out of political protest activities; and ‘‘(B) which is not a crime of violence (as such term is defined in section 16(a)). ‘‘
The only real effect making this definition will have is enabling the enforcement of the one immediately before it.
(l) CIVIL ACTION.—A person who is tried for a Federal offense and is not convicted, or charged with an offense and the charges are dropped, and the person was detained during the pendency of the trial or charges, may bring an action in a district court of the United States against the United States and any officer or employee of 2 the United States seeking compensatory damages.’’.
This is a horrible idea. In practice this is going to result in the AUSAs requesting low or no bail on almost any case just to make sure that they aren't the subject of a lawsuit in the event the case falls apart. It's also not clear how this would affect plea bargaining.
SEC. 3. SPEEDY TRIAL FOR NONVIOLENT POLITICAL PROTESTERS. Section 3161(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after ‘‘In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense’’ the following: ‘‘(including a covered political offense (as such term is defined in section 3142(k))’’.
This is completely redundant.
SEC. 4. REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR MALICIOUS OVERPROSECUTION. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2680(h) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘malicious overprosecution,’’ after ‘‘false arrest, malicious prosecution,’’. (b) DEFINITIONS.—Section 2671 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The term ‘malicious prosecution’ means charging a person with an offense when the official filing such charges knows or has reason to know that there is not probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense, and because of personal or political animosity, bias, or otherwise not in the interest of justice. ‘‘The term ‘malicious overprosecution’ means malicious prosecution that involves charging a person with an offense that is grossly disproportionate to conduct alleged.’’.
This is a misunderstanding of how the Federal Torts Claims Act works. It doesn't create new causes of action against the federal government, it simply waives federal immunity to state law claims. This law is trying to impose a definition of "malicious prosecution" regardless of what the relevant state law states, and create a new cause of action that might not exist in the state law.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a national security authority may not be used by a Government official against a citizen of the United States, unless the citizen is intentionally acting as agent of a foreign power or entity. (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘national security authority’’ means— (1) any authority under the National Security Act of 1947 or any authority conferred onto any of the departments, agencies, councils, committees or any other entities created, established, restructured, or otherwise governed by such Act;
The NSA of 1947 had three main effects. It created the CIA, which already is restricted from working on American soil. It created the National Security Council, which is primarily an advisory body with limited authority and powers to begin with. And it created the Department of Defense. Can you imagine a military without the ability to enforce the UCMJ? Because that's a reasonable reading of this bill.
any authority exercised by the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, the National Security Branch of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
This effectively means that domestic terrorist attacks will no longer be able to be investigated or prosecuted. It will also have profound implications for counterintelligence cases and operations
or the Intelligence Branch of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Intelligence Branch does a lot of work in all aspects of the FBI, and this will limit their ability to help with criminal intelligence and organized crime, as well as any domestic drug enterprise.
SEC. 6. DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATIONS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. The provisions of section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, do not apply with respect to a request made by a United States citizen that requests information about whether the United States is or was surveilling or investigating the citizen.
This actually clashes with 5 USC 552(c).
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SENTENCING COVERED POLITICAL PROTEST OFFENSES. It is the sense of Congress that in sentencing a defendant for a covered political protest offense (as such term is defined in section 3142 of title 18, United States Code), a judge should impose a sentence that is consistent with the minimum sentence provided by the guideline range applicable to the defendant
This one I'm kinda meh about since it has no real effect. The guidelines are completely optional.
SEC. 8. TRANSFER OF VENUE. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the criminal trial of any individual for the commission of a criminal offense in the District of Columbia, the individual on trial may choose venue for the proceedings and trial to be in the district court for the district and division embracing that individual’s primary residence.
And of course the provision the OP was happiest about. Two things pop out to me. What happens if a suspect doesn't have their permanent residence in the United States? That's the practical issue. The deeper ideological issue is that this bill would mean that the people who live in DC will no longer have the right to hold accountable people who came in from outside the district and broke the law, any law. If Rep. Greene has done anything with this messaging bill, it is to show yet another reason DC should become a state, because such a measure would be unconstitutional if done in a state.
