Attorneys General

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares117 Views

    Pam Bondi, a $25,000 Donation and Trump University: Questions Remain

    by

    While Ms. Bondi, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick for attorney general, served as attorney general of Florida, her office declined to investigate allegations of fraud against his for-profit school.Reports of deceptive practices and fraud by Donald J. Trump and his Trump University business unit had been piling up for several years in states across the nation, including in Florida.The state attorney general in New York moved in, filing a lawsuit in 2013 that accused Mr. Trump and his for-profit trade school of “engaging in persistent fraudulent, illegal and deceptive conduct,” even though by that point Trump University was already out of business.The Florida attorney general’s office, which Pam Bondi had taken over in 2011, handled it differently.She publicly acknowledged that her office was examining complaints about Trump University, but it decided against a formal investigation.The decision came soon after Mr. Trump, through his family foundation, sent a check for $25,000 to a political action committee associated with Ms. Bondi, who was running for a second term.Florida’s was not the only state attorney general’s office to decide against taking up the Trump University matter. Mr. Trump also donated to Kamala Harris while she was attorney general of California, and after reviewing the matter, her office also did not pursue.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares64 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Quién es Pam Bondi, la nueva elección de Donald Trump para fiscala general?

      by

      Fue la primera fiscala general del estado de Florida, se convirtió en integrante del equipo de defensa del juicio político a Donald Trump y respaldó sus falsas acusaciones de fraude electoral en 2020.El presidente electo de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, se apresuró a dejar de lado los malos titulares del jueves sobre Matt Gaetz reemplazándolo con rapidez por Pam Bondi, una colega republicana de Florida con un perfil muy diferente —pero una reputación similar de lealtad— para ser su fiscala general.Bondi, de 59 años, es una lobista leal a Trump que ocupó el cargo de fiscala general de Florida entre 2011 y 2019. Ha trazado un camino más convencional y menos estrepitoso que Gaetz, con poco del desagradable bagaje personal o político que llevó a algunos republicanos a oponerse a su nominación.Fue fiscala localBondi, hija del alcalde de un pequeño municipio del área de Tampa, empezó a trabajar como ayudante del fiscal del estado en el condado de Hillsborough en la década de 1990. Durante 18 años como fiscala, llevó casos “que iban desde la violencia doméstica hasta el homicidio punible con pena capital”, según la página de su biografía en su empresa de cabildeo.Supervisó un puñado de casos de gran repercusión, entre los que destaca el del exlanzador de los New York Mets Dwight Gooden, quien cumplió una condena de un año de prisión por violar la libertad condicional en un caso de drogas en 2006.En 2010 fue elegida la primera mujer fiscala general de FloridaBondi, demócrata hasta 2000, se impuso en unas reñidas primarias republicanas y ganó las elecciones a fiscala general tras conseguir el apoyo de Sarah Palin, exgobernadora de Alaska y fallida candidata republicana a la vicepresidencia en 2008, y promocionar su firme postura contra la delincuencia durante sus apariciones en Fox News.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares125 Views

      in Elections

      Pam Bondi Is Trump’s New Choice as Attorney General. Here’s What to Know About Her.

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump quickly swept aside Thursday’s bad headlines about Matt Gaetz by speedily substituting Pam Bondi, a fellow Florida Republican with a starkly different profile — but a similar reputation for fealty — to be his attorney general.Ms. Bondi, 59, is a lobbyist and Trump loyalist who served as Florida’s attorney general from 2011 to 2019. She has charted a more conventional and less clamorous course than Mr. Gaetz, with little of the ugly personal or political baggage that led some Republicans to oppose Mr. Gaetz’s nomination.She was a local prosecutor.Ms. Bondi, the daughter of the mayor of a small Tampa-area municipality, began working as an assistant state attorney in Hillsborough County in the 1990s. During 18 years as a prosecutor, she tried cases “ranging from domestic violence to capital murder,” according to the bio page at her lobbying firm.She supervised a handful of high-profile cases, most notably one involving the former New York Mets pitcher Dwight Gooden, who served a one-year prison sentence for violating probation in a drug case in 2006.She was elected Florida’s first female attorney general in 2010.Ms. Bondi — a Democrat until 2000 — emerged from a crowded Republican primary to win the attorney general’s race after garnering the support of Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and failed 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, and by touting her tough stance on crime during appearances on Fox News.During her eight-year tenure, she tried unsuccessfully to overturn and weaken the Affordable Care Act, opposed expanding legal protections for the L.G.B.T.Q. community and cultivated a national reputation by supporting anti-human-trafficking efforts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares131 Views

      in Elections

      Matt Gaetz, a Bomb-Thrower for the Justice Department

      by

      President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to be attorney general has set a new bar for in-your-face nominations.In selecting Representative Matt Gaetz to be his attorney general, President-elect Donald J. Trump has chosen an undisguised attack dog to preside over the Department of Justice.Mr. Gaetz, 42, a Florida Republican and an unswerving loyalist to Mr. Trump, has a history that under conventional circumstances would make his confirmation prospects appear insurmountable.He was investigated by the Justice Department on suspicion of child sex trafficking. This year, after the government case was shuttered, the House Committee on Ethics opened its own inquiry into the matter, which effectively ended on Wednesday night after Mr. Gaetz resigned from his seat. Mr. Gaetz has also been accused of showing photos of nude women to colleagues on the House floor and of seeking a pardon from the previous Trump White House. He has denied each of these allegations.Mr. Gaetz is also an avowed enemy of virtually every top Republican not named Trump. He led the charge last year to oust one Republican leader, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and this year openly celebrated the resignations of two others — Senator Mitch McConnell, who announced he would be retiring as minority leader, and Ronna McDaniel, who stepped down as chairwoman of the Republican Party National Committee.“We’ve now 86’d: McCarthy, McDaniel, McConnell,” Mr. Gaetz exulted on the social media platform X in March.“I am not some ‘Lord of the Flies’ nihilist,” Mr. Gaetz insisted to The New York Times in January 2023, just after he had relinquished his five-day blockade of Mr. McCarthy’s eventually successful quest to be speaker. But nine months later, Mr. Gaetz helped pushed Mr. McCarthy out of the job for good.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares131 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Choice of Matt Gaetz Should Surprise No One

      by

      Throughout the presidential campaign, I noticed that Trump supporters tended to fall into one of two camps. The first camp — core MAGA — heard Donald Trump’s wild rhetoric, including his vows to punish his political enemies, and loved every bit of it. They voted for Trump because they believed he’d do exactly what he said.Then there was a different camp — normie Republican — that had an entirely different view. They did not believe Trump’s words. They rolled their eyes at media alarmism and responded with some version of “stop clutching your pearls. This is just Trump being Trump. He’s far more bark than bite.”But Trump’s selection of Matt Gaetz as his nominee for attorney general, along with his selection of Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense and Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, shows that Trump did mean what he said. He is going to govern with a sense of vengeance, and personal loyalty really is the coin of his realm.Gaetz’s nomination is particularly dreadful. He isn’t just the least-qualified attorney general in American history (he barely practiced law before running for elected office and has served mainly as a MAGA gadfly in Congress), he’s also remarkably dishonest and depraved.Gaetz has created immense turmoil in the House. He was primarily responsible for deposing the House speaker Kevin McCarthy in a fit of pique, and he’s so alienated House colleagues that one had to be physically restrained from attacking him on the House floor. He has a reputation as showing colleagues explicit pictures of his sexual partners, and he is under a House ethics investigation into whether he had sex with an underage girl while he was a member of Congress.Gaetz has denied these claims, and the Department of Justice closed its own investigation into sex trafficking and obstruction of justice last year.Gaetz’s nomination is a test for Senate Republicans. Can they summon up the minimum level of decency and moral courage to reject Gaetz? Or will they utterly abdicate their constitutional role of advice and consent in favor of simply consenting even to Trump’s worst whims?No matter what happens next, however, Gaetz’s nomination is reaffirmation that the Donald Trump who tried to overthrow an American election hasn’t matured or evolved or grown. He is who he is, and it should surprise no one that he nominated a vengeful loyalist to lead the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      TikTok Faces Lawsuits From 13 States Around Teens and Mental Health

      by

      More than a dozen states sued TikTok on Tuesday for creating an app designed to be addictive to children and teens.Thirteen states and the District of Columbia sued TikTok on Tuesday for creating an intentionally addictive app that harmed children and teens while making false claims to the public about its commitment to safety.In separate lawsuits, a bipartisan group of attorneys general cited internal company documents to paint a picture of a multibillion dollar company that knowingly contributed to a mental health crisis among American teenagers to maximize its advertising revenue. They said that TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, has relentlessly designed features to prompt heavy, compulsive use of TikTok and that many children were using the app late at night when they would otherwise have been asleep.TikTok “knew the harms to children,” Rob Bonta, the Democratic attorney general of California, said in an interview. “They chose addiction and more use and more eyeballs and more mental and physical harm for our young people in order to get profits — it’s really that simple.”The lawsuits add to a rapidly expanding list of challenges for TikTok in the United States, which now counts 170 million monthly U.S. users. A federal law passed in April calls for the app to be banned in the United States as of January unless it is sold. A federal lawsuit against the company in August also claimed that TikTok allowed children to open accounts, gathered information about them and made it difficult for their parents to delete the accounts.TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The states, many of which started investigating the company’s harms to minors in early 2022, are generally claiming that TikTok’s conduct violates their consumer protection laws. The states say that TikTok plays videos in a manner that aims to make young users lose track of time and sends them round-the-clock notifications and ephemeral content like livestreams to compel them to keep checking in. The longer users stay on the app, the more targeted ads TikTok is able to show them.The attorneys general say that TikTok has misled users about its so-called 60-minute screen time limits for young people and other features that promise to curate the videos that they see.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump Could Persecute His Political Adversaries

      by

      It has become commonplace for Donald Trump to talk about how he will use the Justice Department to punish his enemies should he regain the presidency. He routinely calls for prosecuting his current opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, and regularly accuses her and President Biden of weaponizing the Justice Department against him. Though there is […] More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ex-Frat Leaders Sentenced in Hazing Death of Penn State Student

      by

      Brendan Young, 28, and Daniel Casey, 27, will spend two to four months in prison for their roles in the 2017 death of Timothy Piazza, a 19-year-old from New Jersey.Two men charged in the 2017 hazing death of a Penn State sophomore that prompted new legislation imposing tougher charges in similar cases were sentenced to two to four months in prison on Tuesday, prosecutors announced.Brendan Young, 28, and Daniel Casey, 27, were the leaders of the now-defunct Beta Theta Pi chapter at Penn State when a 19-year-old student pledge, Timothy Piazza, died after consuming large amounts of alcohol and suffering several falls in a hazing ritual. It involved 13 other pledges.The pair pleaded guilty in July to 14 counts of hazing and one count of reckless endangerment. On Tuesday, they were each sentenced to two to four months in prison, followed by three years of probation plus community service, the Pennsylvania attorney general said in a news release.Mr. Young and Mr. Casey had each faced charges of involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault, a felony, but those charges were dismissed.Following the sentencing, prosecutors were keen to point out that the men would have faced felony charges and stiffer punishment had the Pennsylvania anti-hazing law adopted in Mr. Piazza’s name in October 2018 been on the books when he died.“Nothing can undo the harm Tim suffered seven years ago — nothing can bring Tim back to his family and friends,” Michelle Henry, the attorney general, said in the news release. “With the sentences ordered today, the criminal process reached a conclusion.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Huge Civil Fraud Penalty Draws Skepticism From Appeals Court

      by

      A five-judge New York appellate panel questioned both the size and validity of a judgment of more than $450 million against Donald J. Trump at a hearing.A New York appeals court expressed skepticism on Thursday about a civil judgment of more than $450 million that a trial judge had ordered former President Donald J. Trump to pay after finding that he had fraudulently inflated his wealth.At a hearing in Manhattan, members of a five-judge panel questioned both the size of the judgment and the validity of the case, which New York’s attorney general brought against the former president and his family business two years ago.While some of the judges appeared to acknowledge the substance of the attorney general’s case, several of the panel’s questions suggested concern about whether the office had exceeded its jurisdiction. And the tenor of many of their questions indicated the possibility that the court could whittle down the huge judgment and potentially deal a blow to the attorney general, Letitia James.Justice Peter H. Moulton, who seemed unswayed by many of the arguments by Mr. Trump’s lawyers, nonetheless said that “the immense penalty in this case is troubling.”The trial judge in the case, Arthur F. Engoron, found Mr. Trump liable for civil fraud last year, concluding that he had lied about his wealth to secure favorable loan terms and other financial benefits. The judge imposed the judgment against the former president in February after a lengthy bench trial.Judith N. Vale, New York’s deputy solicitor general, had barely begun addressing the court before one of the judges, David Friedman, interrupted her to cast doubt on the lawsuit. Other members of the panel inquired about possible “mission creep” by the attorney general’s office. They also questioned what “guardrails” might have ensured that Ms. James did not overstep her authority by second-guessing the net worth estimates that Mr. Trump had provided to lenders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More