More stories

  • in

    US imposes sanctions on international court officials in ‘flagrant attack’

    The Trump administration has ramped up its efforts to hobble the international criminal court in what the ICC has denounced as a “flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution”.The US state department on Wednesday announced new sanctions on four ICC officials, including two judges and two prosecutors, saying they had been instrumental in efforts to prosecute Americans and Israelis. As a result of the sanctions, any assets that the targets hold in US jurisdictions are frozen.The sanctions were immediately denounced by both the ICC and the United Nations, while Israel welcomed the move announced by the secretary of state, Marco Rubio.It is just the latest in a series of steps the Trump administration has taken against the Hague-based court, the world’s first international war crimes tribunal. The US, which is not a member of the court, has already imposed penalties on the ICC’s former chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, who stepped aside in May pending an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct, and four other tribunal judges.The new penalties target the ICC judges Kimberly Prost of Canada and Nicolas Guillou of France and prosecutors Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji and Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal.“These individuals are foreign persons who directly engaged in efforts by the international criminal court to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of either nation,” Rubio said.He added that the administration would continue “to take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our troops, our sovereignty and our allies from the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions”.In a separate statement, the state department said Prost was sanctioned for a ruling to authorize an ICC investigation into personnel in Afghanistan, which was later dropped. Guillou was sanctioned for ruling to authorize the ICC’s issuance of arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s former minister of defense Yoav Gallant related to Israel’s war in Gaza.France – whose president, Emmanuel Macron, was in Washington two days earlier – expressed “dismay” over the action.The sanctions are “in contradiction to the principle of an independent judiciary”, a foreign ministry spokesperson said in Paris.Khan and Niang were penalized for continuing Karim Khan’s investigation into Israel’s actions in Gaza, including upholding the ICC’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, according to the statement.In response, the ICC issued a statement calling the sanctions “a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution” and “an affront against the Court’s states parties, the rules-based international order and, above all, millions of innocent victims across the world”.A UN spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, said the ICC had the full support of the world body to carry out its work. The UN was “very concerned” about the US continuing to target the international court, he said.“We firmly believe that the ICC is a key pillar of international criminal justice, and we respect their work,” Dujarric said. “The decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor in respect for all the situations that are currently before the court.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNetanyahu welcomed the US move.“This is a firm measure against the mendacious smear campaign against the State of Israel and the IDF, and for truth and justice,” he said in a statement, using an acronym for the Israeli military.Wednesday’s move carries on a history of Trump administration actions against the ICC dating back to his first term in office. During Trump’s first term, the US hit the ICC with sanctions, but those were rescinded by Joe Biden’s administration in early 2021.Danya Chaikel, the International Federation for Human Rights’s representative to the ICC, said the escalation in US sanctions amounted to “a continued attack on the rule of law and a blatant attempt to intimidate those pursuing accountability for atrocity crimes”.She said the new sanctions were a “defining test” for the ICC’s 125 member states. “Will they defend the court’s independence and the rights of victims of international crimes, or allow intimidation by powerful states to dictate who deserves justice?” she added. More

  • in

    Judge restrains Beto O’Rourke’s group from sending funds to Democrats outside Texas

    A Texas judge has expanded a restraining order against former congressman Beto O’Rourke and his political organization over its fundraising for Democratic state lawmakers who left Texas to prevent a legislative session on congressional redistricting.Tarrant county judge Megan Fahey, a member of the conservative Federalist Society and past president of the Fort Worth Republican Women’s Club, said in a four-page order published on Saturday that O’Rourke and his political group, Powered by People, are barred from sending money out of Texas.Fahey found that “harm is imminent to the State, and if the Court does not issue this order, the State will be irreparably injured” because “defendants’ fundraising conduct constitutes false, misleading, or deceptive acts under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act”.Fahey said that financial institutions and political fundraising platforms, including ActBlue, the main online platform for Democrats, are “immediately restrained from removing any property or funds that belong to, or are being held for”, O’Rourke or Powered by People “from the State of Texas”.The order came in response to a complaint from Ken Paxton, the far-right Republican attorney general who is seeking to unseat Republican senator John Cornyn, and also attempting to revoke the charter of O’Rourke’s group.On Saturday, O’Rourke said his group had donated more than $1m to Texas Democrats since the start of the redistricting session prompted their out-of-state walk-out. He said the group received “more than 55,000 donations” and the money benefited the Texas legislative Black caucus, the Texas house Democratic caucus, and the Mexican American legislative caucus.Many Texas Democrats have been in Chicago under the protective wing of governor JB Pritzker since early August, each accruing fines of $500 a-day for failing to attend a session called by the Republican Texas governor, Greg Abbott, that would probably add five seats to the Republican slate in Congress after next year’s midterm elections.California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, has responded in kind, unveiling a plan last week to redraw voting lines in his state that could add five safe Democratic seats in Congress, if Texas proceeds. Currently, only one in five seats in the House of Representatives are considered competitive.The California plan came as Texas Democrats are reportedly preparing to make their way home to launch a new chapter in the redistricting war after a series of nationwide protests on Saturday called “Fight the Trump Takeover National Day of Action.”“We were playing chess and they were playing tic-tac-toe,” Texas sate representative Jolanda Jones told Austin’s KVUE. “We were able to stop them, so their numbers didn’t matter. I think it was a gangster move. It was boss, and I’m proud of us.”With members of the Democratic delegation expected to attended a second special legislative session in Austin on Monday, meeting the numbers required, the Texas redistricting measure is expected to pass.Paxton celebrated the judge’s decision, saying that in Texas, “lawless actions have consequences, and Beto’s finding that out the hard way.”Paxton said in a statement that O’Rourke’s “fraudulent attempt to pad the pockets of the rogue cowards abandoning Texas has been stopped” and that “the cabal of Democrats who have colluded together to scam Texans and derail our Legislature will face the full force of the law, starting with Robert Francis O’Rourke.”O’Rourke, who ran a brief campaign for the Democratic party presidential nomination in 2020, filed his own lawsuit against Paxton earlier this month that requested a block on an investigation into his group and alleged that Paxton was engaged in a “fishing expedition, constitutional rights be damned”.O’Rourke said at a protest in Austin on Saturday that Democrats were “not going to bend the knee. We’re going to stand and fight wherever we have to – from the state house to the court house, from Texas to California.” More

  • in

    ‘It’s not illegal to be homeless’: disquiet as Trump crews clear DC encampments

    For the past eight months, David Harold Pugh has found his “spot” outside the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial Library in Washington DC. He keeps all his belongings, including a guitar, tied up together on a two-wheeled buggy.“This is shelter. It’s a safe place where I can put my buggy up against the wall, and it’s up against that beam so nobody can roll it,” said Pugh. “I roll it on its back, and then I sleep alongside of it, so nobody can get it without me waking up.”He’s one of the more than 5,000 people in the city without a permanent place to live and now facing uncertainty about where to find shelter after Donald Trump said homeless people in DC must be moved far from the city.Crews tore down a major encampment near the Kennedy Center on Thursday, with federal law enforcement removing residents and clearing out the remaining encampments across the city overnight. The removal is part of Trump’s federal takeover of the city’s police department and deployment of the national guard across the city.Pugh believes the Trump administration is out of line for blaming crime on unhoused individuals. “It’s not illegal to be homeless,” he said.Despite the widespread encampment closures, Pugh told the Guardian he didn’t have any plans to visit a shelter this week and wanted to stay close to his spot. “If they tell me to roll, I’ll roll and I’ll come back when they leave,” he said.View image in fullscreenIn an encampment across the city, near the interchange of Rock Creek Parkway and Whitehurst Freeway, one homeless individual, who identified himself as G, had already packed up his belongings. He said he had had to bounce around to various locations over the last few weeks.“It’s just going with the punches,” said G. “So you just never get settled. It feels like you [are] on the edge.”G is also just days away from moving off the streets and into permanent housing. He said the only thing he’s missing is a new social security card, which he will have very soon, but until then, he’s not sure where he will go.“What am I supposed to do for six days? Am I supposed to tell the national guard, or whoever, I got six days? Gonna get six days, and I literally have the appointment at the social security [office] on the 20th,” said G.With encampments now closed around DC and just a few days before he can secure stable housing, G said he may consider staying at a shelter.“I know the shelters might be full. I don’t even know where a shelter is, they haven’t gave us any list. No, nothing. They just made us fully aware of possibilities,” he said.According to the DC office of the deputy mayor for health and human services, unhoused residents who want shelter will not be turned away, and the city is prepared to expand capacity as necessary.View image in fullscreenBut if homeless individuals refuse to leave encampments, the Trump administration said their options are limited.During a news briefing earlier this week, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said homeless individuals could face fines or even jail time if they refused to go to a shelter or receive addiction or mental health services.“We’re in the business of making sure people have the information, they have the connection to resources if they choose, but then people are, you know, left up to make their own decisions,” said Kierstin Quinsland, chief program officer at Miriam’s Kitchen, a homeless service provider in DC. “However, it is extremely concerning that people are being threatened with arrest if they are refusing services.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionJesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center said many unhoused people sleep outside in DC and across the nation because rent is too expensive. “Arresting or ticketing people for sleeping outside makes homelessness worse, wastes taxpayer money and simply does not work. The solution to homelessness is housing and supports, not handcuffs and jails,” said Rabinowitz in a written statement.Quinsland said advocates and community partners have mobilized to keep an eye on encampment closures to make sure unhoused individuals are offered support and “treated as respectfully as possible”.She said one of their biggest concerns about these federal police sweeps is losing contact with homeless residents. In many cases, Quinsland said advocates work with members of the city’s unhoused population for weeks, months or longer if they are trying to move them toward permanent housing.“Trust is an issue in homeless outreach, you know. A lot of folks [who] are outside, they decline shelter for a reason, because they don’t trust services,” said Quinsland. “So these relationships that we have with folks are precious, and they are hard fought.”View image in fullscreenAdvocates also warn that these citywide encampment closures may separate homeless individuals from critical support and social services.“If they’re moved somewhere where they don’t know where they can get a meal, they don’t even know how to get back to the neighborhoods that they’re familiar with,” said Quinsland.Ahead of the encampment closures, Quinsland said outreach street teams with Miriam’s Kitchen have been passing inexpensive mobile phones to unhoused residents to help them stay connected.“Making sure that they have our phone numbers, have our business cards with them, to make sure that wherever they may end up, we can remain in contact,” she said.With Trump’s temporary takeover of the DC police department in place for the next few weeks, Quinsland said there had also been discussion about bussing homeless residents to neighboring areas like Montgomery county, Maryland, or parts of Virginia to be “out of sight of Donald Trump”.But that’s just a temporary fix, she said, as homeless service providers need more funding to address the issue.“The long-term answer is, if we have the political will to put money in the city budget for housing, then we can do that,” said Quinsland. “This year, there is zero dollars in the budget for permanent supportive housing vouchers, so that’s not a help.” More

  • in

    US judge hears if Trump team broke law during LA Ice protests

    A federal judge in San Francisco on Monday began hearing evidence and arguments on whether the Trump administration violated federal law when it deployed national guard soldiers and US marines to Los Angeles after protests over immigration raids this summer.The Trump administration federalized California national guard members and sent them to the second-largest US city over the objections of the California governor, Gavin Newsom, and city leaders, after protests erupted on 7 June when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officers arrested people at multiple locations.California is asking Judge Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining troops to the state and to stop the federal government from using military troops in California “to execute or assist in the execution of federal law or any civilian law enforcement functions by any federal agent or officer”.“The factual question which the court must address is whether the military was used to enforce domestic law, and if so, whether there continues to be a threat that it could be done again,” Breyer said at the start of Monday’s court hearing.The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act prevents the president from using the military as a domestic police force. The case could set precedent for how Trump can deploy the guard in the future in California or other states.Trump’s decision to deploy the troops marked the first time in 60 years that a US president had taken such a step without a governor’s consent. Critics say that Trump’s actions in many ways reflect a strongman approach by a president who has continuously tread upon norms and has had a disregard for institutional limits.“This is the first, perhaps, of many,” Trump said in June of the deployment of national guardsmen in Los Angeles. “You know, if we didn’t attack this one very strongly, you’d have them all over the country, but I can inform the rest of the country, that when they do it, if they do it, they’re going to be met with equal or greater force.”Many of the troops have been withdrawn, but Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, said on Sunday that 300 national guard troops remain in the state. The Trump administration last week extended the activation of troops in the LA area through 6 November, according to a court filing by Newsom.“The federal government deployed military troops to the streets of Los Angeles for the purposes of political theater and public intimidation,” Bonta said in a statement. “This dangerous move has no precedent in American history.”The hearing comes the same day Trump placed the DC Metropolitan police department under federal control and deployed the national guard by invoking section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has said national guard units would take to the streets of DC over the coming week.The Department of Defense ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 California national guard troops and 700 marines. Most of the troops have since left but 250 national guard members remain, according to the latest figures provided by the Pentagon. The remaining troops are at the Joint Forces training base in Los Alamitos, according to Newsom.Newsom won an early victory from Breyer, who found the Trump administration had violated the 10th amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded its authority.The Trump administration immediately filed an appeal arguing that courts cannot second guess the president’s decisions and secured a temporary halt from the appeals court, allowing control of the California national guard to stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.After their deployment, the soldiers accompanied federal immigration officers on immigration raids in Los Angeles and at two marijuana farm sites in Ventura county while marines mostly stood guard around a federal building in downtown Los Angeles that includes a detention center at the core of protests.The Trump administration argued the troops were needed to protect federal buildings and personnel in Los Angeles, which has been a battleground in the federal government’s aggressive immigration strategy. Since June, federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the US from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops and farms. Some US citizens have also been detained.Ernesto Santacruz Jr, the field office director for the Department of Homeland Security in Los Angeles, said in court documents that the troops were needed because local law enforcement had been slow to respond when a crowd gathered outside the federal building to protest against the 7 June immigration arrests.“The presence of the national guard and marines has played an essential role in protecting federal property and personnel from the violent mobs,” Santacruz said.After opposition from the Trump administration, Breyer issued an order allowing California’s attorneys to take Santacruz’s deposition. They also took a declaration from a military official on the national guard and marines role in Los Angeles.The Trump administration’s attorneys argued in court filings last week the case should be canceled because the claims under the Posse Comitatus Act “fail as a matter of law”. They argued that there is a law that gives the president the authority to call on the national guard to enforce US laws when federal law enforcement is not enough.Trump federalized members of the California national guard under Section 12406 of Title 10, which allows the president to call the national guard into federal service when the country “is invaded”, when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government” or when the president is otherwise unable “to execute the laws of the United States”.Breyer found the protests in Los Angeles “fall far short of ‘rebellion”.“Next week’s trial is not cancelled,” he said in a ruling ordering the three-day, non-jury trial.During the month the protests took place, tensions heightened between Trump and Newsom. The California governor compared the president with failed dictators and Trump entertained the idea of having Newsom arrested. More

  • in

    Pam Bondi fired him for prosecuting January 6 rioters. He’d do it again: ‘it’s about justice’

    When he showed up to work on 27 June, Mike Gordon was having one of the best weeks of his career.Gordon, a federal prosecutor in Tampa, had spent the last month working on a complex case involving allegations that well-known businessman Leo Govoni stole $100m from a fund for children with special needs. That Monday, the US attorney for the middle district of Florida held a press conference announcing an indictment in the case. On Wednesday, Gordon had his semi-annual performance review and received the top rating: outstanding. On Thursday, he appeared on behalf of the government in court and successfully convinced a judge that Govoni should remain in jail until his trial.As the end of the day rolled around on Friday 27 June, Gordon was fired.He wasn’t given a reason for his dismissal. An office assistant simply knocked on his door while he was preparing a witness for trial, and handed him a letter that told him he was being immediately fired “Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States”, signed by the US attorney general, Pam Bondi. Gordon was told to turn in his devices, pack up his things and leave. The firing was so abrupt he had no chance to hand over his work to colleagues.Even without an official explanation, there was little doubt why he was fired. From 2021 until the end of 2023, Gordon had volunteered for the team prosecuting people involved in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. During his time working in a unit called the Capitol siege section, Gordon became known as one of the most skilled trial litigators and became a kind of coach to other prosecutors as they prepared for trials.But on his first day in office, Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon to anyone involved in January 6.“I got fired because I prosecuted people that this administration wanted protected. Bottom line,” Gordon said.Trump has made no secret of his desire to exact revenge on those who investigated and prosecuted him and his allies. Scores of career prosecutors have been fired for getting in the president’s political crosshairs. Gordon’s firing is one of the best examples to date of how Trump is executing that promise and purging the justice department. It’s an attack on a fundamental pillar of the rule of law – that prosecutors should make decisions about whether and how they should bring cases without political concerns.View image in fullscreenEven though January 6 was one of the most explosive political events in recent history, Gordon said he never had any conversations with a supervisor in which they discussed the political ramifications of what they were doing. The political implications “didn’t matter”, he said.“What we did discuss was the importance we saw in protecting democracy and prosecuting these cases. And creating the precedent and the deterrence that political violence was unacceptable. Full stop,” he said. “And that was worth doing no matter what. It’s why I still think all these prosecutions were worth doing. Even after the pardons, even after my own firing.”The mass firings of career prosecutors is “unprecedented”, said Max Stier, the CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a watchdog group.“There’s enormous discretion that prosecutors have, and there is a tradition that it’s not about winning, it’s about doing justice, and we’re watching that tradition change into it’s neither about winning or doing justice, but it’s doing the bidding of President Trump,” he said.Two other prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases were fired on the same day. Their dismissals came after Ed Martin, a prominent defense lawyer for January 6 defendants, launched a “weaponization working group” at the Department of Justice.Gordon and others who work with him aren’t sure why he and two other colleagues were singled out among hundreds of career prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases. The justice department did not return a request for comment on his firing.One theory is that Gordon was targeted because he took on some of the most high-profile cases, including that of Richard Barnett, who was photographed with his feet on a desk in Nancy Pelosi’s office (sentenced to 54 months in prison), Eric Munchel, known as Zip Tie Guy (sentenced to 57 months in prison), and Ray Epps, who became the center of conspiracy theories about January 6.In person, Gordon, who is 47 with salt-and-pepper hair, has a boyishness that belies his intensity as a prosecutor. During an interview at his home in Tampa, where an American flag was flying outside his door, he sat barefoot and in shorts, knees tucked to his chest as he recounted his time working on the January 6 cases and processing his firing.View image in fullscreenLast month, Gordon and two other justice department employees filed a federal lawsuit challenging his dismissal, alleging that they had been wrongfully fired. A litigator in his bones, Gordon has mapped out in his head how he thinks the administration is likely to defend itself. He thinks the case will ultimately be decided by the US supreme court.“I can tell you that I have been contacted plenty of times by colleagues from my former office who tell me that they’re all wondering, am I next? Have I done something that’s going to be on the wrong side of this administration? Am I going to be punished for some other work I’ve done?” he said.Before he was a prosecutor, Gordon taught high school humanities and his voice still carries the boom of someone who can hold the attention of a classroom of teenagers. He does not mix up facts. When I mistakenly said Barnett, one of the defendants he successfully prosecuted, had put his feet on Pelosi’s desk, he politely responded that it had been a desk in her office. And when I repeated what I thought were the names of his two cockapoos – Cereal and Cheerio – he quietly corrected me. “Maple and Cheerio,” he said.Gordon said he saw the January 6 riot unfold on television while he was folding laundry, four years after he joined the justice department. The prosecutor part of his brain quickly kicked in, he said: “I’m watching a crime scene, I’m watching a crime unfold. And there are all these television cameras around, which is really rare.”In the back of his mind, he recalled something that a mentor told him as a newly minted federal prosecutor in 2017. Throughout his whole life, she told him, he had probably seen something that might be a crime and thought “somebody should do something about that”. Now, he was the person who could do something about it.Initially, Gordon, who was working on violent crimes and narcotics cases in the US attorney’s office for the middle district of Florida, thought that he could help on some of the cases if they involved people from around Tampa. But as the federal prosecutor’s office in Washington charged with investigating January 6 began its work, more attorneys were needed and the department sent out a request for more staff. Gordon volunteered and was chosen.Working remotely from Tampa and traveling to Washington for trials, Gordon became one of several prosecutors taking on cases as they were randomly assigned. In 2022, one of the cases he prosecuted was Kyle Fitzsimons, a 39-year-old man from Maine who wore a white butcher’s jacket and fur pelt, and carried an unstrung bow, and who assaulted five law enforcement officers in a span of about five minutes. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison.Gordon’s performance got the attention of his supervisors and he earned a reputation as a skilled trial litigator. He was put on more trials on some of the more high-profile cases the department was prosecuting. He eventually got a new title – “senior trial counsel” – and would work with lawyers in the Capitol siege section to go over their briefs, help them prepare arguments and go to trial.“I felt the weight of the responsibility to do it well and do it right,” he said. Taking a long pause, he added: “I felt passionate about the righteousness of what we were doing.“I welcome the scrutiny. I’m well aware of the irony that it’s those kinds of things that are probably why I’m unemployed now, probably why I was fired, because I did take on those higher-profile things and this is the risk that sort of comes with it.”“I mean, he worked his ass off,” said Gregory Rosen, Gordon’s boss, and the head of the Capitol siege section (Rosen resigned from the justice department in June). “He is absolutely the heavy hitter in terms of getting cases across the line and taking these high-profile cases. He doesn’t shy away easily. He’s not afraid of the limelight. And he knows how to put his head down and get through the nitty-gritty.”Other prosecutors in the Capitol siege section would even come watch Gordon cross-examine a witness or present to a jury, said Jason Manning, a former federal prosecutor who worked with Gordon.“Mike’s reputation for excellence in court was such that people really made time to go watch him perform,” Manning said. “You simply don’t replace people like Mike overnight.”One of the highest-profile cases Gordon took on was that of Barnett, an Arkansas man who had become one of the most prominent January 6 rioters when he was photographed with his feet on a desk in Pelosi’s office. He also left her a note that said: “Hey Nancy Bigo was here, biatch.” Even though Barnett’s conduct was “somewhere in the middle” on the spectrum of January 6 cases, Gordon understood there would be considerable public attention on the trial.He welcomed the opportunity to show the public how thoroughly the government had investigated the case against Barnett. He also embraced the opportunity to show that Barnett’s crime wasn’t that he merely put his feet on a desk in Pelosi’s office – he came to the Capitol with weapons: a 10lb metal pole and a stun device concealed in a walking stick, which he brandished at a police officer.“The cross-examination got a lot of attention,” he said.View image in fullscreenBarnett offered a litany of excuses trying to downplay his conduct on the day of January 6, at one point arguing that he had been looking for a bathroom and had wandered into Pelosi’s office. Gordon pointed out he had spent a considerable amount of time wandering around the Capitol and never asked for directions to a bathroom.Barnett also stole an envelope from Pelosi’s office, but said he didn’t consider it a crime because it was a “biohazard” as he had gotten blood on it. He had left a quarter and said he didn’t consider it theft.“He had a number of just patently obvious lies,” Gordon said. “It’s very clear that he had the intent, and here’s all the evidence we’ve amassed against this guy to show the public we’ve done our homework.“People can see all the different witnesses. They can hear from Barnett himself, how he responds to cross-examination. Because folks go on friendly podcasts, they post on Twitter, there’s nobody pushing back.”Barnett was convicted on eight counts, both felonies and misdemeanors, and sentenced to more than four years in prison.After Barnett was sentenced, Gordon prosecuted the case against Epps, an Arizona man who was on the Capitol grounds on January 6 and, the night before, encouraged protesters to go to the Capitol. He initially wasn’t charged with a crime, but his life was upended when he became the subject of a conspiracy theory, touted by Tucker Carlson and others, that he was a federal agent. Eventually he was charged with a misdemeanor, making him one of the few people charged with a crime who didn’t enter the Capitol on January 6.Epps eventually pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor. Gordon submitted a sentencing memo on behalf of the government that said Epps should be sentenced to six months in prison, $500 in restitution and a year of supervised release. He was eventually sentenced to a year of probation.Gordon said the case was the hardest one he worked on.“Figuring out what the right thing to do with the Ray Epps case was a real challenge,” he said.“I’m well aware that not everyone agrees. But someone needed to be the lightning rod to handle that, and somebody needed to be able to handle the public appearances.”Edward Ungvarsky, Epps’s lawyer, said that while he and Gordon disagreed on what should happen in the case, he saw Gordon as apolitical, “thoughtful” and “just very by the book”.“He wasn’t political in the slightest,” Ungvarsky said. “I wouldn’t have known if he was a Republican or a Democrat.”When Gordon and I first spoke shortly after he was fired, he was hesitant to go on the record because he thought there was an outside chance that he could get his job back. “It seemed so unjust. It seemed so, not only at odds with my performance, but also what I understood my reputation to be within my office,” he said. As the weeks stretched on, he said, it became clear that wasn’t going to happen.He’s since explained to his children why he was fired. Gordon’s 10-year-old son “understands the idea that something wrong happened to me and I’m doing what I can to speak up about it and to fight back”, he said. “And he really admires that. And that’s another thing that gives me inspiration and fuel.”These days, Gordon says that he has no regrets.“It was the right thing to do,” he said. “I will always operate from the position that I will do the right thing first, and then I’ll worry about what the consequences of that are.” More

  • in

    Trump reportedly considers reclassifying marijuana as less dangerous drug

    Donald Trump is considering reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.At a $1m-a-plate fundraiser at his New Jersey golf club earlier this month, Trump told attendees he was interested in making such a change, the people, who declined to be named, told the newspaper.The reclassification, to remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I controlled substances and make it a Schedule III drug, was proposed by the Biden administration, but not enacted. The change would make it much easier to buy and sell marijuana and make the legal multibillion-dollar industry more profitable.The guests at Trump’s fundraiser included Kim Rivers, chief executive of Trulieve, one of the largest marijuana companies, who encouraged Trump to pursue the change and expand medical marijuana research, the report said.During Trump’s first term, two Soviet-born Republican donors, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, directly appealed to Trump for help with their plan to sell marijuana in states where recreational use was legal. Audio of the 2018 dinner, which was secretly recorded by the two men, revealed that Trump was skeptical, telling the two men that he believed marijuana use “does cause an IQ problem; you lose IQ points”.In the same conversation, the Ukrainian-born Parnas first suggested to Trump that he should remove the US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and shared a false rumor that the diplomat was badmouthing the president by “telling everybody, ‘Wait, he’s gonna get impeached.’”Parnas and Fruman later helped Rudy Giuliani search for dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine, before being indicted and found guilty of campaign finance violations, for secretly using a Russian oligarch’s money to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns and committees, including Trump’s, in pursuit of favors for their planned legal marijuana business.Reuters contributed reporting More

  • in

    US court tosses judge’s contempt order over Trump’s El Salvador deportations

    An appeals court on Friday tossed out a judge’s finding of contempt against the Trump administration in a case over the notorious deportations of Venezuelans from the US to an El Salvador prison without due process.The decision from a divided three-judge panel based in the nation’s capital vacates a finding from US district judge James Boasberg.Boasberg found in April there was probable cause to hold Donald Trump’s administration in criminal contempt of court for willfully disregarding his 15 March order barring the deportations to El Salvador of more than 250 Venezuelans from immigration detention in the US to a brutal prison in the Central American country, under an agreement with the Salvadorian leadership, without the chance to challenge their removals. The Trump administration appealed.On Friday, Washington DC circuit judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both of whom were nominated by Trump in his first term in the White House, concurred with the unsigned majority opinion. Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by Barack Obama when he was president, dissented.View image in fullscreenBoasberg had accused Trump administration officials of rushing deportees out of the country under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act before they could challenge their removal in court and then willfully disregarding his order that planes already in the air should return to the US.The Republican administration has denied violating his order.“The district court’s order raises troubling questions about judicial control over core executive functions like the conduct of foreign policy and the prosecution of criminal offenses,” circuit judge Katsas wrote in an opinion.The Trump administration claimed that all the Venezuelans it removed to El Salvador outside the normal constitutional process were violent gang members, which many of the deportees denied and critics said, regardless of any of the individuals’ criminal guilt or innocence, did not justify denying them due process in the US.The episode has been one of the most high-profile of the second Trump administration’s aggressive anti-immigration agenda, in addition to widespread raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officers in communities across the country.“The district court’s order attempts to control the Executive Branch’s conduct of foreign affairs, an area in which a court’s power is at its lowest ebb,” Rao wrote.Pillard dissented. “The majority does an exemplary judge a grave disservice by overstepping its bounds to upend his effort to vindicate the judicial authority that is our shared trust,” she wrote.The 250 migrants have since been released back to their home country in a prisoner swap with the US after months at the mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot).The US attorney general, Pam Bondi, celebrated the appeals court ruling, calling it a “MAJOR victory defending President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act” in a social media post and vowing to “continue fighting and WINNING in court”.Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represented the migrants, said there was “zero ambiguity” in Boasberg’s order about the planes.“We strongly disagree with today’s decision regarding contempt and are considering all options going forward,” he said.The Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting More

  • in

    Trump’s tariffs face skepticism in court hours before latest round is set to kick in

    Donald Trump’s global tariffs faced significant skepticism in a federal appeals court on Thursday, as judges investigated whether the president had overstretched his powers just hours before the latest sweeping round of duties is set to kick in.The full 11-strong bench of the US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC is considering whether Trump exceeded his authority in imposing “reciprocal” tariffs on a large number of US trading partners.Judges repeatedly asked if Trump was justified in relying on emergency powers to effectively tear up the US tariff schedule without consulting Congress.Businesses challenging his strategy accused the White House of engineering a “breathtaking” attempt to force it through, unlike any trade move attempted by a US administration in two centuries.The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump has used to invoke emergency powers and enforce many of his tariffs, “doesn’t even say ‘tariffs’”, one of the judges noted. “Doesn’t even mention them.”In May a three-judge panel of the court of international trade blocked the import duties on grounds that Trump’s use of IEEPA was unjustified. The appeals court has stayed that ruling pending the outcome of Thursday’s hearing.“The government uses IEEPA all the time,” said Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general in the justice department’s civil division, representing the administration, to the court. He conceded, however, that it was the first IEEPA had been used to implement tariffs.The US trade deficit – the gap between what it imports to and exports from the world – has “reached a tipping point”, claimed Shumate, enabling Trump to take emergency action. “It’s affecting our military readiness,” he said. “It’s affecting our domestic manufacturing capability.”But Neal Katyal, a lawyer representing businesses challenging the tariffs, argued that Trump was laying a “breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in 200 years”.The administration is effectively saying “that our federal courts are powerless; that the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long he wants – so long as he declares an emergency”, Katyal argued.Trump posted about the hearing on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, calling it “America’s big case”. He said: “If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE ‘DEAD,’ WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS.”“Now the tide has completely turned, and America has successfully countered this onslaught of Tariffs used against it,” the president claimed. “ONE YEAR AGO, AMERICA WAS A DEAD COUNTRY, NOW IT IS THE ‘HOTTEST’ COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.”The challenge to Trump’s use of emergency powers has been brought by five small businesses acting alongside 12 Democratic-controlled states. They argue that the IEEPA was designed to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats arising in national emergencies, and that the reason for the tariffs do not meet that standard.The small businesses are being represented by a libertarian public interest law firm, the Liberty Justice Center. The non-profit is supported by billionaire rightwing donors including Robert Mercer and Richard Uihlein, who, paradoxically, have also been major backers of Trump’s presidential campaigns. More