# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sentence Starters! Here you will find a useful list of common sentence starters that you can use in a discussion as well as in essay writing. Learn these sentence starters to improve your English speaking and writing skills.

Sentence Starters

Sentence Starters | Common Phrases

Transition Words Used as Sentence Starters
Words to add an idea Words that show cause Words that show contrast Words that add emphasis
Sentence Starters | Infographic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sentence Starters: Useful Words and Phrases You Can Use As Sentence Starters - ESL Forums

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sentence Starters! Here you will find a useful list of common sentence starters that you can use in a discussion as well as in essay writing. Learn these sentence starters to improve your English speaking and writing skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump was wrongly removed from Colorado ballot, US supreme court rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Court’s decision clears way for ex-president to appear on primary ballot in all states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prosecutor says Rihanna, family were home when woman charged with attempted murder fired

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rihanna, her partner A$AP Rocky, their three children and her mother were all at home when a woman now charged with attempted murder is alleged to have fired at the property, a prosecutor said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Immigrant truck drivers are vital to the economy. ICE crackdown is forcing them off roads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Targeting of foreign-born truckers risks ‘deepening severe labor shortages’ as thousands of drivers have been taken off roads for failing English proficiency requirements

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sure, kids can be annoying – but making public spaces ‘child-free’ is wrong | Emma Beddington

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The French rail operator SNCF has recently installed new ‘adults-only’ carriages. It’s part of a sad culture of suppressing the young that forgets we were all loud and carefree once, writes Emma Beddington

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US justice department removes study finding far

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Department of Justice enforces federal hate crimes laws that cover certain crimes committed on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The Department of Justice began prosecuting federal hate crimes cases after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

This page provides information on federal hate crimes laws; federal hate crimes policies; state laws, codes, and statutes; and a table that indicates which of the bias categories included in federal hate crimes laws are included in each state's laws.

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C. § 249

The Shepard Byrd Act is the first statute allowing federal criminal prosecution of hate crimes motivated by the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The Act makes it a federal crime to willfully cause bodily injury, or attempt to do so using a dangerous weapon, because of the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin. The Act also covers crimes committed because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability of any person, if the crime affected interstate or foreign commerce or occurred within federal special maritime or territorial jurisdiction.

Criminal Interference with Right to Fair Housing, 42 U.S.C. § 3631

This statute makes it a crime to use or threaten to use force to interfere with housing rights because of the victim's race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

Damage to Religious Property, Church Arson Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 247

This statute prohibits the intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of religious real property because of the religious nature of the property, where the crime affects interstate or foreign commerce, or because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of the people associated with the property. The statute also criminalizes the intentional obstruction by force, or threat of force of any person in the enjoyment of that person's free exercise of religious beliefs.

The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, 34 U.S.C. § 30501

This statute directs the Department of Justice to speed up the review of hate crimes for bringing charges. The Department must also work to improve the reporting of hate crimes and hate incidents in light of the rise in anti-Asian hate during the COVID-19 pandemic. To meet this goal, the law requires the Department to reach out to law enforcement agencies and to provide them with helpful tools and resources for reporting, enforcing, and preventing hate crimes.

The Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer National Opposition to Hate, Assault, and Threats to Equality Act of 2021 (Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act), 34 U.S.C. § 30507

This statute, an amendment to the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, provides new grants, training, and other forms of assistance to help state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies with hate crime reporting, prioritizing agencies that have a history of not reporting any hate crimes. The law also directs the Department of Justice to report back to Congress on its efforts to improve hate crime reporting.

Violent Interference with Federally Protected Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 245

This statute makes it a crime to use or threaten to use force to willfully interfere with a person's participation in a federally protected activity because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Federally protected activities include public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations. Under this statute, it is also a crime to use or threaten to use force against those who are assisting and supporting others in participating in these federally protected activities.

Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241

This statute makes it a crime to use or threaten to use force to willfully interfere with a person's participation in a federally protected activity because of race, color, religion, or national origin. Federally protected activities include public education, employment, jury service, travel, or the enjoyment of public accommodations. Under this statute, it is also a crime to use or threaten to use force against those who are assisting and supporting others in participating in these federally protected activities.

Attorney General Memorandum on Improving the Department's Efforts to Combat Hate Crimes and Hate Incidents - May 27, 2021

The Attorney General's memorandum directs the Department of Justice to perform the tasks identified in the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. The goal of the memorandum is to improve hate crime and hate incident reporting, increase law enforcement training and coordination, engage in community outreach, and look at whether existing non-criminal, civil enforcement statutes can address hate incidents that may not rise to the level of prosecutable hate crimes. ( https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1399221/download).

Presidential Memorandum Condemning and Combating Racism, Xenophobia, and Intolerance Against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the United States - January 26, 2021

As it relates to hate crimes, this January 26th Presidential Memorandum ordered the Attorney General to explore opportunities to support the efforts of State and local agencies, as well as Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities and community-based organizations, to prevent discrimination, bullying, harassment, and hate crimes against AAPI individuals, and to expand collection of data and public reporting of hate incidents against such individuals. ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-condemning-and-combating-racism-xenophobia-and-intolerance-against-asian-americans-and-pacific-islanders-in-the-united-states)

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Additional Actions to Respond to Anti-Asian Violence, Xenophobia and Bias - March 30, 2021

This Fact Sheet supplements the President's January Memorandum, announcing additional actions to respond to the increase in acts of anti-Asian violence. Related to hate crimes, the Fact Sheet announces several actions taken by the Department of Justice to address the rise of anti-Asian hate crimes and hate incidents. ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-additional-actions-to-respond-to-anti-asian-violence-xenophobia-and-bias)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the laws and statutes for federal and state hate crimes. Find out which states have hate crime data collection regulations and hate crime laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the Justice Department's top priorities is fighting hate crimes. Use this website to learn more about hate crimes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an emergency, dial 9-1-1 or your local police to get immediate help.
To report a hate crime:
If you believe you are the victim of a hate crime or that you witnessed a hate crime-
STEP 1: Report the crime to your state or local police.

Dial 9-1-1 or call your local police station.

Police officers may reach out to you for more information as they investigate the crime.
STEP 2: Quickly follow up this report by reporting the crime to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Online: You can report a hate crime to the FBI online at: tips.FBI.gov.

Follow the instructions on the pop-ups and fill out the online form to report a hate crime.

By Phone: Call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324).

The FBI may reach out to you for more information as they investigate the crime.

Your Voice Matters: Not every hate incident involves a crime. You can report any incident to the Civil Rights Division at civilrights.justice.gov. Possible outcomes include:

Following up for more information,

Starting a mediation or investigation,

Directing you to another organization for further help, or

Informing you that we cannot help.

People and communities impacted by the incident may also still qualify for the relief outlined below.

Finding Help for Victims of Hate

Resource Center for Victims of Hate Crimes

The Justice Department-funded VictimConnect Resource Center provides information and assistance to victims of crimes, including hate crimes. Trained victim assistance specialists are available at no cost to help victims find local support services at 1-855-484-2846 or by chat at the website linked below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how to report a hate crime and find help for victims of hate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas is one of 44 states where 18-year-olds can legally buy a rifle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gunman Salvador Ramos, 18, purchased two AR-15-style rifles just days after his birthday last week, using one of them to perpetrate Tuesday’s massacre at Robb Elementary School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Republican Donald Trump is heading towards an election rematch with Democratic President Joe Biden in November. How might his criminal prosecutions affect his election campaign?
The 78-year-old is the first former president in US history to be criminally convicted, having been found guilty of falsifying business records.

A few weeks later, the US Supreme Court ruled he had partially immunity in perhaps the most serious case he faces - that he tried to overturn the 2020 election result.

So what might happen next in his four criminal cases and what's at stake as he seeks to return to the White House?
What's it about?
Whether Trump illegally conspired to overturn his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.

Federal prosecutors allege he pressured officials to reverse the results, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Mr Biden's victory and stay in power.

He's been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.

Some had speculated he would be charged with insurrection, or aiding insurrection, but that is not one of the charges.

He has denied wrongdoing and claimed the Biden administration is behind the prosecution.

Watch the moment Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol building
When's the trial?
It doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.

Trump launched an appeal in this case, claiming he had broad immunity from prosecution as president, due to a 1982 precedent that recognised immunity in civil cases.

Lower courts rejected Trump's claim but the Supreme Court has now ruled that Trump has limited immunity for official acts he carried out as president.

A lower district court will now decide which of the charges Trump faces in this federal indictment can and cannot be deemed official.

There is a strong chance some of the charges may not survive.

If Trump wins re-election, he could in theory pardon himself or order all these charges to be dismissed.
Could Trump go to prison?
Penalties for the charges include:

Conspiracy to defraud the US is punishable by a fine or up to five years in prison

Obstructing an official proceeding is punishable by a fine or up to 20 years in prison

Conspiracy against rights is punishable by a fine or not more than 10 years in prison, or both

But there are logistical, security and political questions around whether Trump would actually serve time in jail even if convicted.

A conviction at trial would take the US into uncharted territory.
What's it about?
A payment made to the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.

Ms Daniels was paid $130,000 (£103,000) to keep quiet about her claim that she had sex with Trump, which he denies.

Providing so-called hush-money is not illegal.

Instead, this case was more technical and centred on how Trump's former lawyer, who paid Ms Daniels, had his reimbursement recorded as legal fees in Trump's accounts.
What happened at trial?
The prosecution's key witness was ex-lawyer Michael Cohen, who testified that his former boss knew about the elaborate scheme to disguise the payment.

In days of heated cross-examination, Trump's lawyers sought to undermine Cohen and paint him as an unreliable witness and convicted liar.

The jurors deliberated over two days before finding the former president guilty of all 34 counts of fraud under campaign finance laws.

Trump has said the case is politically motivated.

His lawyers are requesting the conviction be overturned, citing the Supreme Court immunity ruling, according to a letter seen by US media including the BBC's partner network, CBS News.
Could Trump go to prison?
Each of the charges carries a maximum of four years in prison, although a judge could sentence Trump to probation later this month.

Legal experts told the BBC they think it is unlikely Trump will be jailed and that a fine is the more likely outcome.
What's it about?
Trump and some 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his very narrow defeat in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election.

The racketeering investigation, led by Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, was sparked in part by a leaked phone call in which the former president asked the state's top election official to "find 11,780 votes".

Trump was hit with 13 criminal counts, subsequently reduced to 10. They include one alleged violation of Georgia's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico).

The former president has pleaded not guilty.
When's the trial?
A date has not been set. The timeline has been complicated by an effort by Trump and his allies to disqualify Ms Willis because of her romantic relationship with a man she hired to work on the case.

An appeals court has tentatively set a date of 4 October to hear oral arguments in the bid to have Ms Willis removed.
Could Trump go to prison?
The racketeering charge carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence.

Georgia prosecutors would need to prove that there was a pattern of corruption from Trump and his co-defendants aimed at overturning the election result in order to bring a conviction.

As for making false statements, that carries a penalty of between one to five years in prison or a fine.
What's it about?
Whether Trump mishandled classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.

It's also about whether he obstructed the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files, as well as the criminal investigation into his handling of them.

The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information, which falls under the Espionage Act.

There are then eight individual counts, which include conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record and making false statements. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
When's the trial?
The judge overseeing the case has cancelled the trial date - originally set for 20 May - and has not immediately rescheduled.

She cited the several pre-trial motions still pending as the reason for the delay, calling it "imprudent" to begin without settling the various legal matters.

Trump and his lawyers want it put off until after the November presidential election, meaning the judge's delay works to their advantage.
Could Trump go to prison?
These charges could, in theory, lead to substantial prison time if Trump is convicted.

Looking at the letter of the law, the counts under the Espionage Act each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. Other counts, related to conspiracy and withholding or concealing documents, each carry maximum sentences of 20 years.

But the logistics of jailing a former president mean a conventional prison sentence is seen as unlikely by many experts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The former president is juggling potentially explosive legal battles with campaigning for the White House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US election polls 2024: Who is ahead - Harris or Trump?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An in-depth look at the polls and what they can and can’t tell us about who will win the White House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly two years after the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the Democratic-led House committee investigating the attack released its full report Thursday.

The report comes after the panel's final business hearing on Monday, where they recommended former President Donald Trump be prosecuted by the Department of Justice on four charges: obstruction of an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by assisting, aiding or comforting those involved in an insurrection.

The committee also referred four Republican House members - Kevin McCarthy of California, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona - to the House Ethics Committee for failure to comply with subpoenas.

A summary of the report was also released Monday, which includes the panel's key findings and evidence related to the criminal referrals.

What else is in the report?

The report includes additional evidence, along with detailed descriptions of the scheme pushed by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election. It also includes citations from the more than 1,000 interviews the committee members conducted over the course of their 18-month investigation.

More documents are still expected.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who chairs the committee, told reporters that transcripts of non-sensitive interviews they conducted will be released before end of the year, when the panel officially sunsets. Some have already been released.

What happens now that the committee has finished its investigation?

Whether the Justice Department will take any action is unclear. Since Trump announced another run for the presidency, the DOJ appointed special counsel Jack Smith to lead the department's investigations into the former president.

It is likely that the committee's referrals of House members to the ethics committee will hit a wall when Republicans take control of the House in the new year.

The committee's legislative recommendations appear to have traction: a bill updating the Electoral Count Act, further clarifying that the vice president's role in certifying the election is entirely ceremonial, has bipartisan backing and has been attached to the omnibus spending bill moving through Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The House Jan. 6 committee releases its final report on the Capitol attack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The summary of the committee's report included criminal referrals for the former president, who inspired the deadly insurrection that took place nearly two years ago.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More ink has been spilled, nationally and internationally, on the bitter divorce of Houston billionaire Ed Bosarge Jr. and Marie Bosarge in the last several weeks than in the entire previous duration of the interminable legal wrangling. The newfound attention is perhaps due to the fact that an April trial date was missed amid reports that the billionaire is suffering from COVID-19.

In early April, The Wall Street Journal chronicled the lengthy saga in great detail. "The case had been slated to go to trial in April but has been postponed due to Mr. Bosarge's health and the coronavirus pandemic," the piece notes. Private investigator Wayne Dolcefino, hired by friends of Marie, reports that the jilted wife confirmed to him that Ed Bosarge, co-founder of high-frequency trading firm Quantlab Financial, did indeed have COVID-19.

It's a battle over an estimated $3.2 billion estate, all of which the couple made during their marriage - and all of which he claims is locked in trusts in South Dakota to which she has no legal access. Not a penny. And not an ounce of property, not even the kitchen sponges or an ice cream scooper, much less her eye-popping 43-carat yellow-diamond necklace, all of which are listed as "trust property."

Houston bon vivants might recall that in 2011, Marie Bosarge, a music lover herself, founded Music Doing Good, a nonprofit aimed at providing music programs for school students. That same year, the couple purchased a $45 million flat on London's Belgravia Square.

Little did Marie know, as she spent two years decorating the apartment, raising funds for her charity, and hosting charitable events at the couple's 27,000-square-foot home Chateau Cornarvon, that she would never hold residence there She was also unaware that her husband was wooing a 20-something Russian socialite named Ana Kostenkova. Or that she would eventually be ousted from the chateau and denied access to any of the 12 residences the couple acquired during 30 years of marriage.

Ed Bosarge, now 81, told his wife in 2013 that he was leaving her. In 2017, he filed for divorce.

In short, through a series of secretive trusts established in South Dakota, where knotty trust laws seemingly encourage those who wish to hide fortunes, Marie has been left with nothing other than a monthly stipend until the divorce is settled.

Family law attorney Bucky J.D. Allshouse, who represents Marie, has been quoted as saying that if Ed Bosarge gets away with his scheme of diverting money to locked trusts in South Dakota, then "no wife is safe."

London's jumped on the story shortly after the WSJ piece, while Dolcefino has been posting regular updates on his website. Internewscast.com picked up the story on Monday. And CNBC was in Houston earlier this month, working on a story about the tangled divorce involving a complex web of trusts and limited-liability companies that Ed Bosarge established to prevent Marie from accessing cash and the homes they acquired together.

"I want him to be fair," Marie says in discussion with Dolcefino. "You know, we made our money in Houston. It's community property. It's 50-50. I want what's fair."

On his personal website, Ed Bosarge is self-described as "a world-renowned pioneer in the application of advanced mathematics to the fields of finance, medicine, and energy." The title proclaims him as "entrepreneur, philanthropist, visionary."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Houston Billionaire's Bitter Divorce Draws International Attention With a Russian Mistress and Coronavirus Part of the Tangled Web

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More ink has been spilled, nationally and internationally, on the bitter divorce of Houston billionaire Ed Bosarge Jr. and Marie Bosarge in the last several weeks than in the entire previous duration of the interminable legal wrangling. The newfound attention is perhaps due to the fact that an April trial date was missed amid reports that the billionaire is suffering from COVID-19.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The legal term grounds for divorce refers to the legal reasons for which a couple may be granted a divorce. Such grounds for termination of a marriage may be based on the fault of one or more parties demise of the relationship, or it may be , in which neither has to state the other has done something wrong. Each state's statutes lists the grounds under which a divorce may be granted, and even in a no fault divorce, certain limited grounds must be met. To explore this concept, consider the following grounds for divorce definition.

Definition of Grounds for Divorce
Noun
Specific circumstances under which a spouse may be granted a divorce.
Origin
B.C. Circumstances for divorce are referred to in the Bible

No-fault vs. Fault divorce

In many states, when a couple files for a no-fault divorce, they must be separated for a specified minimum period of time before the divorce can be filed or finalized. The period of separation varies by state, but may range from 3 months to 1 year according to state statutes. In a no-fault divorce, the couple simply agrees that they cannot stay married to due irreconcilable differences.

In a fault divorce, one spouse claims that the other is to blame for the relationship falling apart. In states that do allow fault marriages, the couple does not have to wait through a separation period before they can file for divorce. In such a divorce, the innocent spouse may also be entitled to a greater share of the marital assets, or even spousal support if he or she can prove the other spouse caused the marriage to fail. Most states allow for the filing of both types of divorce, but some states have embraced a no fault only system.

Grounds for a Fault Divorce

Each state has a distinct list of substantial wrongdoings for which a spouse may request a fault divorce. The most common grounds are adultery and abuse, but even in these cases, specific requirements must be met in order for a fault divorce to be considered.

Adultery

Also referred to as "infidelity," adultery refers to any type of sexual behavior engaged in with a person other than the individual's spouse, including sexual behavior with the same or opposite sex. In order to prove this in court, the innocent spouse must have documented evidence, such as photographs, video or audio recordings, or a confession made by the cheating spouse.

Mental illness

A permanent mental illness is grounds for divorce in most states. The spouse who files for divorce must prove to the court that the other spouse suffers from an incurable mental disorder that makes the marriage intolerable. A competent doctor must have diagnosed the mental illness.

Incarceration

When a spouse has been imprisoned for a period specified in state statutes, it may constitute grounds for divorce for the other spouse. Most states require the imprisonment time to be a minimum of one year.

Substance Abuse

Substance abuse may be grounds for divorce in some states, if the innocent spouse can prove that the drug or alcohol consumption lead to problems in the marriage.

Sexual Incompatibility or Impotence

Rarely, sexual incompatibility is used as a reason for divorce. The law in some states recognizes that, if one spouse cannot perform sexually, the other spouse has a reason to break away from the relationship. However, for this to be considered grounds for divorce, the sexual issues must have not been disclosed before the couple married. Some states also stipulate that the marriage cannot have been consummated.

Cruelty

Cruelty may include the infliction of mental or physical suffering on one spouse by the other. Cruelty may include such acts as physical violence, frequent displays of rage, and even repetitive false accusations or public insults. When filing for divorce on grounds of cruelty, the innocent spouse must show the court that the cruelty made the marriage intolerable in some way. The acts of violence or emotional distress must also be recurrent, as most courts do not consider single acts as grounds for divorce.

Abandonment

When a spouse leaves the home without the knowledge or consent of the other spouse, it is considered abandonment. To prove abandonment, the innocent spouse must show that the accused spouse left voluntarily and had no true intention of returning. When a spouse leaves for military service, or flees to escape domestic abuse, it is not considered abandonment.

Grounds for a No Fault Divorce

Most states allow no fault divorces, and some, including California, only allow no fault divorce filings. Even in such a divorce, a reason for the requested dissolution of marriage must be stated. The reasons offered for a no fault divorce are limited, and usually include:

1. Irreconcilable Differences - also referred to as "irretrievable breakdown," this simply means the couple cannot get along together anymore, and there is no hope of rebuilding the relationship.

2. Incurable Insanity - also referred to as "mental illness," this means that one spouse has a serious, permanent psychological disorder that makes the marriage impossible for the other spouse.

Preventing an Unwanted Divorce

When it comes to a no-fault divorce, the other spouse cannot prevent it from being granted. However, if one spouse files a fault divorce, he or she must prove the wrongdoing of the other spouse. If it cannot be proven, or if the accused spouse can prove he or she is not at fault, the divorce may not be granted. The other spouse can also use the defense that the filing spouse condoned the activities, or that the acts were provoked in some way.

For example, Elizabeth files for a divorce from John in a no fault divorce state. John does not want to be divorced and refuses to cooperate. Because it is a no fault divorce state, and Elizabeth has claimed the couple has irreconcilable differences, the divorce will be granted rather John likes it or not. In fact, if he refuses to file an Answer to the divorce complaint, a default judgment will be awarded to Elizabeth, and the property divided according to the documentation she alone has provided to the court.

Comparative Rectitude

In some cases, each spouse will claim that the other party is at fault for the demise of the marriage. They may each provide proof for the grounds for divorce. Historically, when this occurred and both parties were found at fault, the divorce would not be granted. However, the modern concept of comparative rectitude has changed that, as the courts now deem that it is not in the best interest of the public to force two people to remain married. Now, when both spouses are found at fault, the court will use the doctrine of comparative rectitude to grant the spouse that is found the least at fault the divorce.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

Divorce - The legal termination of a marriage.

Jurisdiction - The legal authority to hear legal cases and make judgments; the geographical region of authority to enforce justice.

Irreconcilable Differences - When two people cannot agree on fundamental issues.

Marital Assets - All property, financial assets, and debt acquired by the couple during the course of the marriage, regardless of who holds title to it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grounds for Divorce - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The legal term grounds for divorce refers to the legal reasons for which a couple may be granted a divorce. Such grounds for termination of a marriage may be based on the fault of one or more parties demise of the relationship, or it may be , in which neither has to state the other has done something wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adam Ruins Everything - The Shocking Way Private Prisons Make Money

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adam Ruins Everything - The Truth About the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US supreme court rules Trump has ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Court rules former presidents entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack detailed former President Trump's "complete dereliction of duty" as he ignored pleas to condemn the violence and call off the mob from his White House Counsel, top aides and members of his own family.

"This man of unbridled destructive energy could not be moved, not by his aides, not by his allies, not by the violent chants of rioters, or the desperate pleas of those facing down the rioters," said Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., during Thursday's prime-time hearing.

The Democrat-led committee shed light on the much-talked about but still murky 187 minutes that stretched from his speech to his supporters at 1:10 p.m. ET to his 4:17 p.m. ET video statement asking them to return home.

The hearing, led by military veterans Reps. Elaine Luria, D-Va., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., used witness testimony to piece together Trump's actions the afternoon of Jan. 6, as there was not an official call log from the White House that afternoon and nothing included in the presidential daily diary.

"The chief White House photographer wanted to take pictures because it was, in her words, 'very important for his archives and for history.' But she was told: 'no photographs'," Luria said.

White House counsel and White House officials testified that Trump did not make any calls to the secretary of defense, the attorney general or the secretary of homeland security during the siege.

Although the White House call logs are empty, Trump lawyer and ally Rudy Giuliani's call logs show at least two calls between him and the president that day. The committee also noted that other Trump calls that day are known, including several to Republican senators to urge them to delay the certification of Biden's win.

'I've seen the impact that his words have on his supporters'

A major theme from the hearing was how much television the former president consumed as the chaos and violence unfolded.

"President Trump sat in his dining room and watched the attack on television while his senior-most staff closest advisers and family members begged him to do what is expected of any American president," Luria said. "When lives and our democracy hung in the balance, President Trump refused to act because of his selfish desire to stay in power."

The committee played video clips of news coverage from Fox News, to show what Trump watched in real time as he tuned in from his dining room, just off from the Oval Office. He watched as his supporters, donning red caps and chanting his name, overwhelmed and outnumbered police as they flooded the Capitol grounds and attempted to breach the Capitol.

What was he doing while the Capitol was under siege? See for yourself. Donald Trump is a disgrace to America. pic.twitter.com/tgjdSe2zYZ
- Adam Kinzinger #fella (@AdamKinzinger) July 21, 2022

At 1:49 p.m. ET, just as D.C. police were declaring a riot at the Capitol, Trump tweeted out a video of his speech at the Ellipse earlier that day and did not comment on the violence.

Kizinger noted that between 1:49 and 2:24, when Trump posted a subsequent tweet, "staff repeatedly came into the room to see him and plead that he make a strong public statement condemning the violence and instructing the mob to leave the Capitol."

The panel shared video testimony from top advisers and his children imploring Trump to call off the attack.

Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House staffer, has previouslytestified to a conversation between White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

"I remember [Cipollone] saying something to the effect of, 'Mark we need to do something more. They're literally calling for the vice president to be effing hung.'

Hutchinson recalled Meadow responding: 'You heard him Pat, he thinks Mike deserves it, he doesn't think they're doing anything wrong.' "

Trump eventually relented to calls from his aides and allies and recorded a video in the Rose Gardenlate that afternoonto tell his supporters to leave the Capitol.

The committee shared a draft of his remarks, which read: "I'm asking for you to leave the Capitol region now and go home in a peaceful way."

But in the video, Trump went off script, and didn't say those words. Instead, he repeated his false claim that the election was stolen and praised the rioters, saying, "Go home, we love you."

Thursday's witnesses were Trump aides who resigned following Jan. 6

Testifying live Thursday were Matthew Pottinger, Trump's deputy national security adviser at the time, and Sarah Matthews, Trump's deputy press secretary. The pair resigned following the events of Jan. 6, dismayed by what they deemed an inadequate response from the president at quelling the violence.

Matthews recalled the 2:24 p.m. ET tweet from Trump that read, in part: "Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done."

"I thought that the tweet about the vice president was the last thing that was needed in that moment. And I remember thinking that this was going to be bad for him to tweet this because it was essentially him giving the green light to these people telling them that what they were doing at the Capitol and entering the Capitol was OK, that they were justified in their anger," said Matthews, who described herself as a "life-long Republican".

She added that as a Trump campaign aide, she had seen the impact his words had on his supporters. "They truly latch on to every word and every tweet that he says, and so I think that in that moment for him to tweet out the message about Mike Pence, it was him pouring gasoline on the fire," she said.

Matthews said White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told her "in a hushed tone" that Trump "did not want to include any sort of mention of peace in that tweet."

She said McEnany told her "it took some convincing on their part those who were in the room and she said that there was a back and forth going over different phrases to find something that he was comfortable with, and it wasn't until Ivanka Trump suggested the phrase 'stay peaceful', that he finally agreed to include it."

Pottinger said he was "disturbed" by Trump's tweet attacking Pence and that it was "the opposite of what we really needed in that moment which was a de-escalation."

The panel described one of Trump's finalinteractions on Jan. 6, as he departed the White House dining room at 6:27 p.m. ET to go to the residence.

"As he was gathering his things in the dining room to leave, President Trump reflected on the day's events with an unnamed White House employee," Kinzinger said, adding the employee recalled Trump saying: "Mike Pence let me down."

What comes next?

In his closing statement, Kinzinger said Trump abandoned his responsibilities as commander-in-chief on Jan. 6.

"Whatever your politics, whatever you think about the outcome of the election, we as Americans must all agree on this: Donald Trump's conduct on Jan. 6 was a supreme violation of his oath of office and a complete dereliction of his duty to our nation," he said. "It is a dishonor to all those who have sacrificed and died in service of our democracy."

He said when the committee releases its report, it will recommend "changes to laws and policies to guard against another January 6."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jan. 6 panel sheds light on the 187 minutes Trump went dark during Capitol siege

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack detailed former President Trump's "complete dereliction of duty" as he ignored pleas to condemn the violence and call off the mob from his White House Counsel, top aides and members of his own family.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Donald Trump at the Jan. 6, 2021, rally in Washington, before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol concluded what is expected to be the last of its public hearings on Thursday by unspooling the evidence it had gathered. There was no more mystery about its conclusions than there would be when watching a prosecutor's closing argument at a criminal trial: The riot was a function of the actions and decisions of the former president.

"The vast weight of evidence presented so far," Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the committee vice chair, said in an opening comment, "has shown us that the central cause of January 6th was one man, Donald Trump, who many others followed. None of this would have happened without him. He was personally and substantially involved in all of it."

What followed was a review of that evidence, a stitching together of hours of prior testimony and the injection of newly uncovered details as the committee has continued its work. It was, as the prior analogy would suggest, a prosecution of a case - and an effective one.

Sign up for How To Read This Chart, a weekly data newsletter from Philip Bump

Trump's responsibility for the violence that unfolded that day can be viewed as an escalation over three periods of time: the months before the election on Nov. 3, 2020, the period from Election Day to Jan. 6, and the events of Jan. 6 itself.

Before Election Day

There's no real beginning point for Trump's unending claims that American elections are riddled with fraud. He made such claims about the very first election in which he participated, his loss at the 2016 Iowa caucuses to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). But we can point to a moment when the specific strain of allegation that defined his response to the 2020 election took root.

In the spring of 2020, in the first weeks of the coronavirus pandemic, states moved to increase mail-in voting as part of an effort to limit in-person interactions. Trump opposed that change, having been on-record in the past that expanding access to voting would disadvantage his party. As is often the case with a spurious claim that Trump makes, the process of defending it causes him to entrench himself in his case. So, over the months that ensued, he and his team elevated numerous claims that mail ballots were suspect or vectors for fraud, despite the utter lack of evidence to that point.

His campaign team appears to have been frustrated: mail-in ballots are a useful way to lock in votes well in advance of Election Day. In testimony aired during Thursday's hearing, Trump's 2020 campaign manager, Bill Stepien, described trying to get Trump to embrace having his supporters vote by mail. But, he said, "the president's mind was made up."

It's likely that Trump's original goal was nebulous, just to have space - as he had after that caucus in Iowa and after the 2016 presidential contest - to claim that he did better than people might have thought. But as the months passed and it became clear that Republicans were taking his skepticism to heart, a plan formed.

Voting methodology had become partisan, so Democrats were voting earlier by mail and Republicans on Election Day in-person. Paradoxically, that meant that Democratic votes would often be counted later, since processing mail ballots is slower. And that meant that the earliest vote totals reported on Election Day would be very favorable to the incumbent. This was dubbed the "red mirage," since, over the following hours and days, support for Joe Biden would slowly be added to totals and Trump's lead would shrink or vanish.

So Trump planned to simply announce victory shortly after polls closed, hoping to create a sense not that votes were being counted but that his victory was being unwound. Even before Election Day, Axios reported that this was Trump's plan. Former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale told the Jan. 6 committee that he'd heard rumblings along those lines as early as July.

As Trump adviser Roger Stone put it in a comment captured by a team of documentary filmmakers: "The key thing to do is to claim victory. Possession is nine-tenths of the law."

During Thursday's hearing, the committee showed an email sent by right-wing activist Tom Fitton. It included a proposed script for Trump to use. It read, in part: "The ballots counted by the Election Day deadline show the American people have bestowed on me the great honor of reelection to President of the United States." That was sent Oct. 31, 2020.

CBS News has confirmed that Oct. 31, 2020 was a key date in the pre-election maneuvers by Trump. Set off alarm with WH counsel and Herschmann, among others. I've seen texts from that night from some aides and they knew it was no joke; declaring victory was Trump's plan. Period.
- Robert Costa (@costareports) October 13, 2022

The rhythm here is clear. Trump was uninterested in waiting to see whether the American public wanted him to have a second term in office. Instead, he spent months tilling the soil of doubt by making unsupported claims that mail-in ballots would lead to fraud. Then he and his allies developed a plan to take advantage of the resulting divide, using misleading early vote totals as a predicate for claiming victory.

Meaning that anything that followed could and would be cast as theft.

From the election to Jan. 6

The election was called on Nov. 7, 2020, as those slowly counted votes in Pennsylvania revealed that Biden had won a majority of electoral votes and would be president.

That same day, Trump's aides told him that it was over. Communications aide Jason Miller told the committee about a conversation he'd had with Trump that Saturday.

"At some point, myself and a handful of other folks went over and sat down with the president and communicated that the odds of us prevailing and legal challenges were very small," Miller testified. He was right.

Over the following weeks there were other moments in which Trump was told that he would be leaving the White House in January. Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified that Meadows told her that Trump knew that he'd lost.

"A lot of times he'll tell me that he lost," Hutchinson testified that she was told by Meadows, "but he" - that is, Trump - "wants to keep fighting it. He thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but he pretty much has acknowledged that he has lost."

Why would he want to keep fighting it? Simply, to preserve his power. He wanted to remain president and understood that preserving a sense among his supporters that he should be president, that he had won, was important to doing so. Just as it had been important for years that he deny other realities to give his base space to rise to his defense. Behind the scenes, he was even conveying to people that he had no intention of leaving the White House on Inauguration Day.

Preserving the idea that victory was possible meant rapidly cobbling together detours as legal avenues to a second term were shut down.

First, he and his team tried to halt that slow counting of votes in several states. When that failed, he and his attorneys tried to block the certification of the vote, the formal validation of the election results. He came closest in Michigan, where two Republican members of the certification board in the state's largest county at first opposed certification, backing down only after facing public pressure.

When that failed, attention turned to the finalization of the electoral votes that would be counted in Washington on Jan. 6. Trump's allies put together a plan in which alternate slates of electors would meet on Dec. 14, the day electors cast their ballots, ostensibly in hopes that those slates would eventually be determined to be the legitimate ones.

Republican Party chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told the committee that she'd gotten a call from Trump and his attorney, John Eastman, asking that the Republican National Committee aid this effort. Eastman, she said, began to "talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing change the result of any of the states."

With that in their back pocket, Trump and his team tried to invalidate those valid electoral slates. He and his attorneys called state officials in Georgia to encourage the state to "find" enough votes that he would be declared the winner. That call is now a subject of an investigation in Fulton County, Ga. Hutchinson's takeaway from it, according to her testimony: "That call was crazy."

Ultimately, the plan to reject Biden's duly certified electors came down to that count on Jan. 6, as Trump was increasingly aware. The idea was that Republicans in the House and Senate would raise dubious questions about the submitted electors and send them back to states. Speaking to Justice Department officials in December, he encouraged them to simply declare that the election had been tainted by fraud - and then "leave the rest to me and the [Republican] Congressmen." When the Justice Department leadership declined, Trump plotted to replace them.

Another vector for blocking the electors was promoted in a memo written by Eastman. It suggested that Vice President Mike Pence could simply reject them out of hand. Trump seized on this idea, publicly pressuring Pence to do exactly that - despite the lack of evidence that this was viable. Even Eastman, the committee said on Thursday, admitted in an email on Jan. 6 that Trump had been advised this wasn't feasible.

On Dec. 11, 2020, the Supreme Court shut down Trump's last major legal effort to block Biden's election. When Trump learned of the decision, he was furious.

Hutchinson and Meadows ran into him shortly afterward.

"He said something to the effect of I don't want people to know we lost, Mark," Hutchinson testified. "This is embarrassing. Figure it out. We need to figure it out. I don't want people to know that we lost."

A week later, Trump met with allies and aides to discuss last-ditch options for retaining power. It included speculation about seizing voting machines and appointing attorney Sidney Powell - already exposed as spreading unfounded claims about the election - as special counsel. Ultimately the meeting didn't result in significant action.

A few hours after that lengthy meeting ended, though, Trump sent out a tweet, linking to false claims about fraud.

"Big protest in D.C. on January 6th," he wrote. "Be there, will be wild!"

That tweet comes up over and over again in the indictments obtained against rioters; it was the point at which many of them decided to travel to Washington and participate in that protest.

During this period, from the election to Jan. 6, Trump could have taken the entire country down a different path. But he wanted to retain power, and, as the days passed, his options for doing so narrowed. In the end, he only had that last point of pressure, the normally rote congressional counting of submitted electoral votes.

So that's where he put pressure.

On Jan. 6 itself

Trump began his day on Jan. 6 making phone calls. He spent some time working on the speech he would give at a rally just south of the executive mansion. Then, a bit after 11:30 a.m., he left the White House for the short drive to the Ellipse.

One of the more revealing aspects of the committee's work has been to make clear just how aware federal protective services were about the crowd outside Trump's speech that day. There was a secure area immediately in front of the stage where attendees were screened by magnetometers. And there was a much larger surrounding area in which many attendees remained without entering - and without being checked for weapons.

Secret Service reports detail a number of encounters with armed individuals in the vicinity, as the committee reported on Thursday. This comported with warnings they'd received in the preceding weeks; the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies had been warned about increasing chatter about possible violence in Washington and at the Capitol.

Trump apparently knew that some in the extended audience were armed, too. In her testimony before the committee, Hutchinson relayed a comment she heard Trump make that morning: "I don't ... care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me." During his speech, in fact, he encouraged the security screeners to stand down so that the audience could better fill the space in front of the stage.

During his speech, Trump reiterated a variety of false claims about the election. The committee showed clips from the speech in which he elevated debunked claims about votes in Michigan and Georgia, juxtaposing those comments with testimony from former deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue in which he describing telling Trump that those specific claims were baseless.

It's important to remember that the speech at the Ellipse wasn't originally Trump's plan. In the aftermath of his Dec. 19 tweet, a number of allies refocused their efforts on doing things that day. One group, made up of fringier elements of his coalition, aimed to have a rally on Capitol Hill. Another planned the event at the Ellipse. Eventually, those were folded together - though without an authorized plan for a march from the speech to the Capitol.

Trump wanted such a march. The White House drafted a tweet mentioning it. One of the organizers of the Ellipse speech texted an ally to indicate that Trump planned to "spontaneously" announce a march from the White House to the Capitol. During his speech, he did just that, despite warnings from his attorneys. Much of the crowd moved to the Capitol, providing a critical mass of people that allowed them to push past police.

Remember, Trump knew they were armed. According to the committee, he'd also been warned that there was a threat of violence. But Trump knew they were "not here to hurt me" and planned, as he announced, to march with them.

"I recall him saying that he wanted to physically walk and be a part of the march and then saying that he would ride the [presidential limo] if he needed to," Trump's press secretary Kayleigh McEnany testified. When then SUV taking him from the speech venue didn't head to the Capitol, Trump became furious, according to witness testimony. Secret Service staffers prepared for an unscheduled trip to the Capitol - a plan that, documents obtained by the committee reveal, was only called off at about 1:55 p.m.

About 15 minutes before the Capitol was breached.

According to testimony obtained by the committee, Trump already knew about violence on Capitol Hill; he'd been told shortly after arriving back at the White House. But instead of speaking out, he proceeded to watch events unfold. Molly Michael, Trump's assistant at the time, testified about Trump's activities during the riot: "It's my understanding he was watching television."

Allies flooded the White House with requests for Trump to intervene. He didn't.

"You heard him, Pat," Hutchinson says she heard Meadows tell White House counsel Pat Cipollone. "He doesn't want to do anything more. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong."

If anything, he actively made the situation worse. Shortly after Fox News interviewed a Trump supporter who expressed exasperation at Pence's decision not to try Trump's power-grabbing ploy, Trump tweeted an excoriation of the vice president. The mob was enraged; some rioters were only about 40 feet from Pence as he evacuated to a safer position.

When Trump eventually did send out a message to his supporters that they should go home, most of the damage was done. Like Pence, the House and Senate had been moved to safety. Windows were smashed. Scores of police officers were attacked and injured. The rioter who tried to climb through a window near where House members were evacuated was already dead.

In video obtained by the committee, rioters seeing Trump's message responded as desired: "That's our order" - to go home.

Why didn't Trump act more forcefully? Why didn't he speak out sooner? Again, for the same reason he'd done everything else: He wanted to retain power. And this was the last, most dangerous part of that effort.

"Our committee may ultimately decide to make a series of criminal referrals to the Department of Justice," Cheney said in her opening statement on Thursday, "but we recognize that our role is not to make decisions regarding prosecution." Instead, the committee concluded its hearing by voting to subpoena Trump for testimony.

That subpoena will almost certainly never result in testimony from the former president. But, to some extent, it doesn't matter. The case has been made.

The prosecution rests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis | The case against Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol concluded what is expected to be the last of its public hearings on Thursday by unspooling the evidence it had gathered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There’s an interesting question that’s left unanswered -- and often unasked -- in the debate over tort reform: Why do people decide to file lawsuits, and why not? Anger, activism, revenge and reform all play a role.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Litigation and Compensation Culture in the US

# data[].attributes.body
SOUNDS OF ENGLISH

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Learn English | Let's Talk - Free English Lessons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English fillers to speak fluently and confidently. ( Gap fillers) - Free English lessons