Justice Department

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Should Hundreds of Millions in Seized Assets Go to ISIS Victims?

      by

      The State and Justice Departments disagree about what to do with more than half a billion dollars after a French company pleaded guilty to aiding militants in war-torn Syria.Biden administration officials are divided over what to do with $687 million in assets a French company forfeited after pleading guilty to aiding terrorist groups like the Islamic State, according to people familiar with internal deliberations.The dispute, which has pit the State Department against the Justice Department, raises a tangle of legal, moral and policy problems about the financial implications of executive branch officials handling an unusually large amount of money that has not gone through the usual process of being appropriated for a specific purpose by Congress.Among the points of contention: whether the administration can or should funnel some of the money toward helping international victims of ISIS, most of whom are still in Syria or are refugees elsewhere in the Middle East.Adding to the complications, a group of ISIS victims now living in the United States also want a share of the assets. They are represented by Amal Clooney, a prominent human rights lawyer who is married to George Clooney, the actor who is helping raise money for Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign, and by Lee Wolosky, a former Biden administration official.The vast sum at stake comes from the first prosecution of a corporation for conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization. In 2022, the French building materials giant Lafarge pleaded guilty to paying off ISIS and another terrorist group in Syria, the Nusra Front, in 2013 and 2014, to ensure that it could keep operating a plant in the region.When the civil war in Syria broke out, Lafarge had just built an expensive cement factory in the northern part of that country. Officials at the company struck the unusual agreement with militant groups, court papers said, in part so it would be in a position to profit off the need to rebuild in Syria when the war ended.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Hunter Biden Is Expected to Appeal Conviction on Gun Charges

      by

      Lawyers for Mr. Biden are considering a number of challenges to the guilty verdict, including one based on the Second Amendment.Hunter Biden is expected to appeal his felony conviction for falsifying a federal firearms application, likely arguing that the judge in the case violated his constitutional rights in her instructions to the jury, according to people in his orbit and legal experts.Mr. Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell has also signaled that any appeal would be based on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in 2022 that vastly expanded gun rights, a ruling that spawned legal challenges to the part of the federal firearms form at the center of the Biden case. In Mr. Biden’s case, it included a question asking buyers about their drug use.Any appeal would be an uphill climb, and the lawyers representing President Biden’s son cannot officially file one until he is sentenced at the courthouse in Wilmington, Del., within 120 days, or about a month after he is scheduled to go on trial on federal tax charges in Los Angeles.There is still a possibility that David C. Weiss, the special counsel in the case, will seek a plea agreement before the tax trial begins, and would have leverage in negotiations now that Mr. Biden is already a convicted felon, according to former prosecutors. Mr. Biden might have greater incentive to reach a deal to avoid another public airing of his personal ordeal beyond what was presented in Wilmington last week.On Tuesday, after deliberating for a little more than three hours, a jury convicted Mr. Biden of three felony counts related to lying on a federal firearms application and illegally possessing a weapon.Mr. Lowell suggested that he might appeal, vowing to “vigorously pursue all the legal challenges available to Hunter.” President Biden said in a statement that he would “accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal.”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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      U.A.W.’s Monitor Investigates Accusations Against Its Leader, Shawn Fain

      by

      The court-appointed monitor is looking into allegations by two union officials that they were punished for raising questions on financial matters.A court-appointed monitor overseeing the operations of the United Automobile Workers union is investigating disputes involving the union’s president, Shawn Fain, and two U.A.W. officials who say they were improperly stripped of duties.The monitor, Neil M. Barofsky, also accused the union on Monday of a “lapse in cooperation” with the investigation, saying it had taken months to turn over relevant documents and then provided only a small fraction of those requested.The union declined to comment.The assertions at issue were included in a report filed in federal court in Michigan about Mr. Barofsky’s tenure as monitor, which began in 2021 as part of a consent decree after Justice Department investigations that resulted in the convictions of several union officials, including two past presidents, on corruption charges.That process also resulted in the union’s first election of a president by a vote of the full membership — balloting that elevated Mr. Fain, running as an insurgent candidate, to the top job in a runoff last year.One matter now under investigation, according to the filing, stems from a dispute over the role of the union’s secretary-treasurer, Margaret Mock. In February, the union’s international executive board voted to support Mr. Fain’s move to strip Ms. Mock of duties not mandated under the union constitution, on allegations that she “had engaged in misconduct while carrying out her financial oversight responsibilities,” according to the report.Ms. Mock denied the allegations and asserted that the move had been “improperly instigated in retaliation for her refusal or reluctance to authorize certain expenditures” for the president’s office, the report said.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

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Hunter Biden’s Trial: A Routine Gun Case, but Abnormal in Every Way

      by

      At Hunter Biden’s trial, he listened with the jury to his own voice on the audio version of his memoir. “We’ve all been inside rooms we can’t afford to die in,’’ he heard himself say.When the federal prosecutor, Derek Hines, began his opening statement with the words “no man is above the law,” it signified the only rhetorical acknowledgment to the jury that the trial of Hunter Biden was not an ordinary gun charge.Mr. Hines seemed intent on trying a seemingly run-of-the-mill case of a drug addict charged with illegally purchasing a firearm. In doing so, however, it was as if he had instructed the 12 jurors, in the manner of the wizard in “The Wizard of Oz,” to pay no attention to the extraordinary spectacle plainly in view.Pay no attention to the defendant’s last name, the most famous one in Wilmington. Pay no attention to the first lady, Jill Biden, sitting in the front row behind the defendant, whom she raised as her own son. Pay no attention to Mr. Biden’s famous attorney, Abbe Lowell, or to the millionaire Hollywood lawyer also in the front row, Kevin Morris, who is largely bankrolling his friend Mr. Biden’s legal defense.And pay no attention to the 50 or so members of the media taking up most of the spectator space — among them a documentary film team paid for by Mr. Morris.The 12 jurors were left to deduce these matters on their own. Several of them stole glances at the defendant, as if trying to square the image of the 54-year-old man in the dark suit, flag lapel pin and tortoiseshell reading glasses with the crack addict described in the testimony. At one point, Mr. Biden flashed a genetically familiar broad smile while talking to Mr. Lowell during a courtroom break.For the most part, however, the defendant looked the somber part of a man facing up to 25 years in prison. He sat impassively, listening along with the jury to his own voice reciting the audio version of his memoir, “Beautiful Things,” including the observation, “We’ve all been inside rooms we can’t afford to die in.”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

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Here’s Where Trump’s Other Cases Stand

      by

      After being convicted in a Manhattan courtroom, the former president still faces charges in three criminal prosecutions, all of which are tangled up in procedural delays.Former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan came to an end this week when a jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in an effort to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to upset his 2016 presidential campaign.But Mr. Trump is still facing federal charges, brought by a special counsel, in two cases: one in Florida, where he is accused of illegally holding on to classified documents after leaving office and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them, and one in Washington, D.C., where he’s accused of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He faces similar election-tampering charges in a third case brought by a local prosecutor in Georgia.The proceedings — all of which are bogged down in delays — can be confusing to keep track of. Here are updates on where each of them stands.Federal Documents CaseThe federal indictment against Mr. Trump in the documents case.Jon Elswick/Associated PressIn this case, Mr. Trump is accused of illegally holding on to a large amount of sensitive national security material after leaving office and then plotting to obstruct repeated efforts by the government to get it back. The charges were brought by Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to oversee the federal investigations into Mr. Trump.The case is tied up in efforts by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to have the charges against him dismissed before they go to trial. To that end, the lawyers have filed a barrage of motions attacking the indictment on a number of grounds. Those include claims that Mr. Smith was improperly appointed to his job and that he filed the charges as part of a politicized effort to harm Mr. Trump.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Sues to Break Up Ticketmaster Owner, Live Nation

      by

      Accused of violating antitrust laws, Live Nation Entertainment faces a fight that could reshape the multibillion-dollar live music industry.The Justice Department on Thursday sued Live Nation Entertainment, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, asking a court to break up the company over claims it illegally maintained a monopoly in the live entertainment industry.In the lawsuit, which is joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia, the government accuses Live Nation of dominating the industry by locking venues into exclusive ticketing contracts, pressuring artists to use its services and threatening its rivals with financial retribution.Those tactics, the government argues, have resulted in higher ticket prices for consumers and have stifled innovation and competition throughout the industry.“It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster,” Merrick Garland, the attorney general, said in a statement announcing the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit asks the court to order “the divestiture of, at minimum, Ticketmaster,” and to prevent Live Nation from engaging in anticompetitive practices.The lawsuit is a direct challenge to the business of Live Nation, a colossus of the entertainment industry and a force in the lives of musicians and fans alike. The case, filed 14 years after the government approved Live Nation’s merger with Ticketmaster, has the potential to transform the multibillion-dollar concert industry.Live Nation’s scale and reach far exceed those of any competitor, encompassing concert promotion, ticketing, artist management and the operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world.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

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      DOJ to Sue Live Nation, Accusing It of Defending a Monopoly

      by

      Live Nation Entertainment, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, faces a fight that could reshape the multibillion-dollar live music industry.The Justice Department and a group of states plan to sue Live Nation Entertainment, the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, as soon as Thursday, accusing it of illegally maintaining a monopoly in the live entertainment industry, said three people familiar with the matter.The government plans to argue in a lawsuit that Live Nation shored up its power through Ticketmaster’s exclusive ticketing contracts with concert venues, as well as the company’s dominance over concert tours and other businesses like venue management, said two of the people, who declined to be named because the lawsuit was still private. That helped the company maintain a monopoly, raising prices and fees for consumers, limiting innovation in the ticket industry and hurting competition, the people said.The government will argue that tours promoted by the company were more likely to play venues where Ticketmaster was the exclusive ticket service, one of the people said, and that Live Nation’s artists played venues that it owns.Live Nation is a colossus of the concert world and a force in the lives of musicians and fans alike. Its scale and reach far exceed those of any competitor, encompassing concert promotion, ticketing, artist management and the operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world.The Ticketmaster division alone sells 600 million tickets a year to events around the world. According to some estimates, it handles ticketing for 70 percent to 80 percent of major concert venues in the United States.Lawmakers, fans and competitors have accused the company of engaging in practices that harm rivals and drive up ticket prices and fees. At a congressional hearing early last year, prompted by a Taylor Swift tour presale on Ticketmaster that left millions of people unable to buy tickets, senators from both parties called Live Nation a monopoly.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Says Boeing Violated 2021 Settlement Over Max Plane

      by

      The department said the company had failed to design and enforce an ethics program to prevent violation of U.S. fraud laws.The Department of Justice said on Tuesday that Boeing was in violation of a 2021 settlement related to problems with the company’s 737 Max model that led to two deadly plane crashes in 2018 and 2019.In a letter to a federal judge, the department said that Boeing had failed to “design, implement and enforce” an ethics program to prevent and detect violations of U.S. fraud laws in the company’s operations. Creating that program was a condition of Boeing’s settlement, which also carried a $2.5 billion penalty.The determination by the Justice Department opens the door to a potential prosecution of a 2021 criminal charge accusing Boeing of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration, though Boeing can contest Tuesday’s decision.In a statement, Boeing said that the company believed that it had honored the terms of the settlement, adding that it was looking forward to the opportunity to respond.“As we do so, we will engage with the department with the utmost transparency, as we have throughout the entire term of the agreement,” Boeing said in its statement.The Justice Department declined to comment. Paul G. Cassell, a lawyer representing families of victims of the fatal plane crashes, said that his clients were planning to meet with the government on May 31 to discuss next steps in the case.When the government reached its settlement with Boeing in January 2021, many families of the crash victims said that the Trump administration had been too lenient on the aircraft manufacturer.“This is a positive first step and, for the families, a long time coming,” Mr. Cassell said. “But we need to see further action from D.O.J. to hold Boeing accountable.”The crashes of the 737 Max 8 planes in Indonesia and Ethiopia killed 346 people, prompting the F.A.A. to ground the entire 737 Max fleet. An investigation found that both crashes involved mistaken triggering of a maneuvering system designed to help avert stalls in flight.In another settlement, the Securities and Exchange Commission said that Boeing had offered misleading reassurances about the safety of the 737 Max in public statements after both crashes, despite knowing that the maneuvering system had posed a continuing safety issue.The Justice Department reached its finding at a tumultuous time for Boeing, which has faced intense regulatory scrutiny since a door panel blew out of a 737 Max 9 plane during an Alaska Airlines flight from Portland, Ore., in January. In March, the company said its chief executive, Dave Calhoun, would step down at the end of the year, along with Stan Deal, the head of the division that makes planes for airlines and other commercial customers.Mr. Calhoun replaced Dennis A. Muilenburg, who led the company during the 2018 and 2019 crashes. Boeing fired Mr. Muilenburg, whose performance during the crisis angered lawmakers and alienated victims’ families.Mark Walker More