Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      The week in Trump absurdities: from Turkey’s ‘rigged elections’ to ‘your countries are going to hell’

      by

      In Donald Trump’s world there are weeks and then there are weeks. This one was a doozy. From declaring war on Tylenol to an escape with an escalator, Trump surpassed himself with his gaffes, outlandish statements and unhinged stunts – many of which involve decisions with real world consequences.This was the week in the theatre of the politically absurd:Saturday“Pam”, Trump wrote on social media, addressing Pam Bondi, the attorney general. The president demanded that Bondi pursue legal action against political adversaries including James Comey, a former FBI Director, and Letitia James, the New York attorney general, whose name he misspelled as “Leticia”.Pronouncing them “all guilty as hell”, Trump insisted: “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.” But the president deleted his Truth Social post about an hour later, prompting speculation that he had been trying to send Bondi a direct message but hit the wrong button.SundaySpeaking at a memorial service for the killed rightwing activist Charlie Kirk, Trump delivered a message that stood in stark contrast to the event’s prevailing theme of reconciliation.The president recalled that Kirk had said he wanted his ideological opponents to know he loved them. “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” he said. “I hate my opponents and I don’t want the best for them, I’m sorry.”In another jarring moment during a singing of America the Beautiful, Trump performed a little dance as he stood beside Kirk’s grieving widow, Erika.MondayTrump directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue new guidance advising pregnant women to avoid acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, citing an unproven link to autism.But “acetaminophen” proved tough to pronounce. “Effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of aceta – well, let’s see how we say that,” Trump said. “Acetam – enophin. Acetaminophen. Is that OK? Which is basically commonly known as Tylenol.”Pregnant women with a high fever should consult their doctors about taking a small dose, the president added. “If you can’t tough it out, if you can’t do it, that’s what you’re going to have to do. You’ll take a Tylenol, but it’ll be very sparingly. I think you shouldn’t take it.”A link between Tylenol and autism has not been established. Health experts pointed to a Swedish study published last year that tracked 2.4m births and found no evidence of an association between prenatal exposure to the drug and autism.TuesdayA decade after he descended a Trump Tower escalator to announce his run for president, Trump was stopped in his tracks at the UN headquarters in New York. He and his wife, Melania, had just stepped on an escalator when it abruptly stopped.In his address to the UN general assembly, Trump falsely claimed that he “ended seven wars” and bitterly complained that he never received a phone call from UN leaders. “All I got from the United Nations was an escalator that, on the way up, stopped right in the middle. If the first lady wasn’t in great shape, she would have fallen, but she’s in great shape. We’re both in good shape.”He added: “These are the two things I got from the United Nations, a bad escalator and a bad teleprompter. Thank you very much.”Trump also used the global stage to boast of US glory and chastise world leaders: “It’s time to end the failed experiment of open borders. You have to end it now. It’s – I can tell you. I’m really good at this stuff. Your countries are going to hell.”WednesdayEscalator-gate escalated further. In a 357-word social media screed, Trump alleged: “A REAL DISGRACE took place at the United Nations yesterday – Not one, not two, but three very sinister events! This wasn’t a coincidence, this was triple sabotage at the UN. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.”The escalator “stopped on a dime”, he wrote, expressing relief that he and the first lady “didn’t fall forward onto the sharp edges of these steel steps, face first”. Then, when Trump took the podium, his teleprompter went “stone cold dark”, he added.Then, after being forced to ad lib part of his speech to the general assembly, he asked his wife how he had done and she replied: “I couldn’t hear a word you said.”Trump demanded an immediate investigation, adding: “All security tapes at the escalator should be saved, especially the emergency stop button. The Secret Service is involved. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”The UN said a videographer from the US delegation who ran ahead of Trump may have inadvertently triggered the stop mechanism at the top of the escalator, while the White House was responsible for the teleprompter.ThursdayTrump kicked off an Oval Office meeting with the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan by remarking: “We’ve been friends for a long time, actually, even for four years when I was in exile – unfairly, as it turns out. Rigged election.”Pointing at Erdoğan, he added: “He knows about rigged elections better than anybody.”During the meeting Trump also blamed the left for rising political violence, even though statistics show otherwise, and delivered a menacing warning: “I mean, bad things happen when they play these games and I give you a little clue: the right is a lot tougher than the left. But the right’s not doing this, they’re not doing it and they better not get them energised, because it won’t be good for the left.”Later, while signing executive orders, Trump veered off script to denounce Democratic congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, who is Black. “Is she any relation to the late, great Davy Crockett? I don’t think so. Let me tell you before you even ask. She’s a very low IQ person.”Meanwhile he added a presidential walk of fame to the White House, featuring portraits of his himself and his predecessors – except for one. Instead of Joe Biden’s portrait, Trump hung a photo of an autopen signing the Democratic president’s name.FridayFour days from a looming government shutdown, Trump went to see US golfers take on Europe in the Ryder Cup. “The team is not doing so well,” he explained. “So, when I heard that I said, ‘Let’s get on the plane. We have to fly and help them.’”Trump also circled back to baseless medical advice, repeating his plea for pregnant women to stop using Tylenol. He also called for the measles-mumps-rubella combination vaccine to be split into separate shots, and for children not to get the hepatitis B vaccine, normally given in the first 24 hours after birth, before the age of 12 years.In a Truth Social post, the president wrote: “Pregnant Women, DON’T USE TYLENOL UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, DON’T GIVE TYLENOL TO YOUR YOUNG CHILD FOR VIRTUALLY ANY REASON, BREAK UP THE MMR SHOT INTO THREE TOTALLY SEPARATE SHOTS (NOT MIXED!), TAKE CHICKEN P SHOT SEPARATELY, TAKE HEPATITAS B SHOT AT 12 YEARS OLD, OR OLDER, AND, IMPORTANTLY, TAKE VACCINE IN 5 SEPARATE MEDICAL VISITS!”The advice from Trump goes against that of medical societies, which cite data from numerous studies and decades of practice. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Outrage mounts as Republicans in Congress move to protect pesticide makers from lawsuits

      by

      It’s been seven years since Germany’s Bayer bought US agrochemical giant Monsanto, inheriting not only the company’s vast portfolio of seeds and pesticide products, but also more than 100,000 lawsuits alleging Monsanto’s popular Roundup herbicide causes cancer. Bayer, which has so far paid out billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts to cancer victims, has been working – so far in vain – to put an end to the litigation and to block any future such cases.Now Bayer appears closer than ever to success, as many Republican congressional leaders push for measures that would effectively block lawsuits against pesticide makers around the country.A group founded by Bayer called the Modern Ag Alliance is the face of the legislative push, advocating for liability shields they say are necessary to allow companies to continue to sell chemicals that farmers use to kill weeds and bugs in their fields.“Without legislative action, a potential catastrophe is on the horizon that could result in many farmers going out of business and food prices rising even further,” the alliance, which represents more than 100 agricultural organizations, including farmers who grow wheat, corn, soybeans and other key food crops, warns on its website.The alliance has been lobbying for the passage of state laws blocking such lawsuits. They’ve succeeded thus far in two states – Georgia and North Dakota – and continue to lobby for such laws in all 50 states.But the immediate battleground is in the halls of Congress, where a provision tucked into a congressional appropriations bill is outraging consumer advocates, including those affiliated with the influential Make American Healthy Again (Maha) movement. Similar protective language for pesticide makers is expected to be included in the new farm bill as well.“The audacity of elected officials voting for legislation to fully strip our legal rights away when injured by chemicals is stunning,” said Kelly Ryerson, a leading Maha advocate who has been lobbying lawmakers and her 84,000 social media followers to oppose pesticide company protections. “Especially in this age of Maha when an unprecedented number of Americans are rallying against toxins in food and the environment.”‘Important investments’Bayer has made it clear that changing laws in its favor is a priority. The company states on its website that without “legislative certainty”, lawsuits over its glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide and other weed killers can affect its research and product development and other “important investments”.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be the ultimate arbiter of product safety and what warnings should be required on product labels, Bayer says. The company also says if the EPA approves a product label, consumers should not be able to sue companies for failing to warn of perceived risks.In a statement to the Guardian, Bayer said federal legislation is “needed to ensure that states and courts do not take a position or action regarding product labels at odds with congressional intent, federal law and established scientific research and federal authority”.Bayer has already removed glyphosate, classified as “probably” carcinogenic to humans by World Health Organization cancer experts, from consumer herbicide products. And the company has threatened to stop selling it to farmers if the litigation is not brought to an end.The company disputes, however, that the appropriations bill will provide that certainty, saying in its statement that the language doesn’t prevent lawsuits and asserting it does is a “distortion of reality”.The relevant section of the House version of the appropriations bill – section 453 – does not mention litigation or pesticide company liability. Section 453 simply says that no funds can be used to “issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling” inconsistent with the conclusion of an EPA human health assessment.But critics say the language effectively would impede states and local governments from warning about risks of pesticides even in the face of new scientific findings about health harms if such warnings are not consistent with outdated EPA assessments. The EPA itself would not be able to update warnings without finalizing a new assessment, the critics say.Due to the limits on warnings, consumers would find it nearly impossible to sue pesticide makers for failing to warn them of health risks if the EPA assessments do not support such warnings.The language is “by design sneaky and complicated and hard to explain”, said Daniel Hinkle, senior state affairs counsel for the American Association for Justice, who has been lobbying against the action.“Nobody thinks that a giant chemical company should be able to lie about the risks of using their product and get away with it. It’s just making sure that people understand that is what is at stake,” Hinkle said.‘Very worried’Representative Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine who tried but failed to overturn the language in a July appropriations committee hearing, said she is “very worried” about the “outrageous” efforts to protect pesticide companies from litigation.“We’re talking about chemicals here that are already prone to health risks,” Pingree said. “And the chemical industry is trying to keep that information from consumers … and then to have immunity from being responsible if you get cancer from being in the presence of these chemicals.”The language is not currently included in the short-term government spending package being debated ahead of a looming government shutdown that would occur at the end of the month in the absence of continued spending authorization.But it is expected to see support in both House and Senate appropriations bill versions once the short-term budget is resolved. The new farm bill is also expected to include language limiting or preventing pesticide injury lawsuits, with strong signals from Glenn Thompson, chair of the House committee on agriculture, favoring such protections.Previously, Thompson has weighed in on the side of Bayer amid its ongoing efforts to get the supreme court to weigh in on federal “preemption” over pesticide regulation.The involvement and influence of the Maha movement, made up of voters from both parties, is adding a bipartisan element to what otherwise might be a highly partisan fight.Max Lugavere, a health journalist, author and podcaster who posted a photo of a Maha-related visit to the White House to his 1.1 million Instagram followers, said pushing lawmakers is important, but “awareness among everyday people is the first domino”.Citing “growing evidence linking pesticides to health risks”, Lugavere said: “Stripping away legal recourse in these cases wouldn’t just be wrong, it would be [a] tragedy.”For California lawyer Brent Wisner, who helped lead the early Roundup litigation against Bayer, the efforts by lawmakers to protect the company against future litigation is un-American and potentially unconstitutional.“I don’t care what party you are in, if you get poisoned by a pesticide manufacturer you want to be able to sue. You need to be able to sue,” he said. “Bayer is paying millions of dollars to get these laws passed because it’s cheaper than it is to pay people they’ve given cancer to.”This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says he expects charges for other adversaries after Comey indictment

      by

      Donald Trump said on Friday that he expected more people whom he considers his political enemies to face criminal charges, a day after the justice department indicted former FBI director James Comey and faced a torrent of criticism for enacting the president’s campaign of retribution.“It’s not a list, but I think there’ll be others,” Trump said as he departed the White House to travel to the Ryder Cup golf tournament. “I mean, they’re corrupt. They were corrupt radical left Democrats.”Trump’s blunt remarks underscored the perilous moment for his political adversaries, given that the justice department pressed ahead with criminal charges against Comey, even though it was widely seen – inside and outside the administration – to be a weak case.The indictment against Comey, filed in federal district court on Thursday in Alexandria, Virginia, alleged that he misled lawmakers in September 2020 when he stood by his previous testimony to Congress claiming he had never authorized anyone at the FBI to leak to reporters.Prosecutors alleged that statement was not true and that Comey had authorized his friend and Columbia law school professor Dan Richman to leak to reporters about an investigation into Hilary Clinton, when Richman worked for a short time as a special government employee at the FBI.But the underlying evidence against Comey, which remains unclear from the two-page indictment, was considered to be insufficient for a conviction. The issues were laid out in a memo and Erik Siebert, the then interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, declined to bring charges.Trump fired Siebert within days and replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, most recently a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience. Halligan was briefed on the problems with the case but pressed forward with charges anyway, presenting the case herself to the grand jury.The grand jury returned an indictment on two counts but declined to approve a third. Even then, only 14 out of 23 grand jurors voted to bring the false statement charge, barely more than the 12-person threshold, court documents show.The fraught nature of the Comey indictment raised fresh fears that Trump’s political appointees at justice department headquarters in Washington and at its field offices elsewhere will feel emboldened to pursue criminal cases against the president’s other adversaries.Among other people, Trump has fixated in recent weeks on criminal investigations against the New York attorney general Letitia James and Democratic senator Adam Schiff over mortgage fraud allegations. James brought a civil fraud case against Trump last year and Schiff led the first impeachment trial.Last weekend, before Comey’s indictment, Trump called on his attorney general Pam Bondi to pursue Comey, James and Schiff. “They impeached me twice and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!” Trump posted on Truth Social.The administration also launched a criminal investigation into former CIA director John Brennan, who Trump despises for his role in the US intelligence community’s assessment in 2016 about Russian malign influence operations aimed at helping the Trump campaign.Last month, the FBI also searched the home and office of John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser turned critic, over allegations he mishandled classified documents. The FBI recovered documents with classification markings but Bolton’s lawyer claimed they had been declassified. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Disney investors demand details into company’s Jimmy Kimmel suspension

      by

      A group of Disney investors is asking the company to turn over documents related to the company’s decision to temporarily suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, amid charges the media company may have been “complicit in succumbing” to media censorship.The investors, composed of lawyers for the American Federation of Teachers and Reporters Without Borders, noted that Disney’s stock “suffered significant declines in response to the company’s abrupt decision to suspend Mr. Kimmel and his show”, it said in a letter to Disney.“The fallout from suspending Jimmy Kimmel Live! sparked criticism as an attack on free speech, triggered boycotts and union support for Mr. Kimmel, and caused Disney’s stock to plummet amid fears of brand damage and concerns that Disney was complicit in succumbing to the government overreach and media censorship,” the letter said.The lawyers are demanding “copies of any meeting minutes, meeting agenda and written materials provided to the [company’s] board or presented at any meeting of the board” regarding Kimmel’s decision. It cites a law in Delaware, where Disney is incorporated, that says shareholders can receive materials around board discussion “to investigate potential wrongdoing, mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty by members [of the board]”.Disney did not immediately respond to requests for comments.The company first suspended Kimmel’s show “indefinitely” on 17 September, after the network aired comments Kimmel made about Charlie Kirk’s killing saying “the Maga gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it”.The next day, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair, Brendan Carr, criticized Kimmel’s comments and said that the regulatory agency would be willing to throw its weight behind making sure the companies airing Kimmel’s show are held accountable.“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”Soon after, Nexstar Media Group, a major owner of ABC affiliates, announced it would preempt Kimmel’s show, calling Kimmel’s comments “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse”. Nexstar is seeking FCC approval for a $6.2bn merger with Tegna, another major TV station owner.After Nexstar’s announcement, ABC, which is owned by Disney, announced it would halt Kimmel’s show “indefinitely” without further explanation. A few days later, ABC said the show would return Tuesday night. Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcast Group, another major owner of ABC affiliates, said they would continue to preempt the show, which amounts to a Kimmel blackout for 25% of TV audiences. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US is violating human rights laws by backing fossil fuels, say young activists in new petition

      by

      By continuing to fund and support a fossil fuel-based energy system, the US is violating international law, a group of young people have argued to an international human rights body.The petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), filed late on Tuesday and shared exclusively with the Guardian, says the government’s actions have violated the petitioners’ human rights.“The US’s actions over the past 50 years constitute an internationally wrongful act that implicate its international responsibility,” the petition to the Washington DC-based commission says.The IACHR, part of the Organization of American States, is a quasi-judicial body that reviews and investigates complaints about human rights violations, then issues reports with findings and recommendations to the accused states. Its recommendations are not legally binding.The plea comes after the publication of two strongly worded advisory opinions on the climate crisis from two top international courts. It was filed by 15 of the 21 youth climate activists who previously brought the groundbreaking federal climate lawsuit Juliana v US, which was effectively dismissed last year.“This petition is about truth and accountability,” said Levi, an 18-year-old petitioner who was eight years old when the Juliana case was filed. “For over 50 years, the US government has knowingly protected fossil fuel interests while putting people, especially young people, in harm’s way.”View image in fullscreenLike Juliana, the new filing details the myriad ways the climate crisis has caused the young petitioners to suffer. Levi, for instance, grew up in Florida on the Indialantic barrier island. He and his family were frequently forced to evacuate amid dangerous hurricanes; eventually, they became so severe and frequent that his parents decided relocating was the only option.“Part of why we left was so that my baby sister could grow up in a home with a smaller risk of flooding,” he said. “One of the most difficult moments was losing my school after it was permanently closed due to storm damage.”Levi and the other young activists accuse the US of breaching international human rights law, customary international law and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man – an international human rights instrument that guarantees economic, social and cultural rights, as well as equality under the law.The bid comes just after the release of an early July advisory opinion from the inter-American court of human rights (I/A court HR), a separate human rights body which can issue binding recommendations but which the US does not recognize. The opinion said that the climate crisis carries “extraordinary risks” felt most by already-vulnerable populations, and that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man requires countries to set ambitious greenhouse gas-cutting targets.“Before that happened, we had already been planning to file this,” said Kelly Matheson, deputy director of global strategy at the non-profit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which is representing the petitioners. “The timing is pure serendipity.”The I/A court HR opinion is non-binding, and the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the top court from which it came. However, international courts and commissions can draw on the opinions to interpret the law.By denying the plaintiffs “access to justice” – and by expanding fossil fuel production – the US is violating an array of rights guaranteed to the young activists, including the right to life, liberty and security; the right to health; the right to benefits of culture; and special protections for children.“We are bringing our case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights because domestic courts would not hear the full story,” said Levi. “This petition is a statement that what has happened to us is not just unfortunate or political but that it is a violation of our human rights.”The petitioners also accuse the US of violating their right to a healthy climate, referencing another recent nonbinding advisory opinion on greenhouse gas emissions from the international court of justice – a United Nations top court. The young activists have been trapped in that violation since birth, Matheson said.“These young people were born into a climate emergency, they were born into a rights violation, and they have lived every single day with their right to a healthy climate system being infringed upon,” she said. “We could get to a healthy climate system by 2100 if we make changes, but even then, these young plaintiffs will live their entire lives without ever being able to fully enjoy and exercise their right to a healthy climate system … Their hope is that their children or their grandchildren might.”Filed in 2015, Juliana v US argued that the government violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights with pro-fossil fuel policies. Our Children’s Trust, which brought the case, made its final attempt to revive the case last year by asking the supreme court to allow the suit to proceed to trial in a lower court; its bid was denied in March.By denying the young challengers access to effective remedies to the climate crisis and thereby continually causing them harm, the courts failed to fulfill its international legal obligations, the new filing says.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe US is also breaching its obligations by continuing to perpetuate a fossil fuel-based energy system, argues the petition to the IACHR.“The US government, the leading cumulative contributor to climate change, has caused real harm to our health, our homes, our cultures and our futures,” said Levi.With the new petition, the young activists are demanding “precautionary measures” aimed at protecting their rights and obligations, as well as a hearing. In their best-case scenario, the IACHR would visit the US to hear the stories of the petitioners, then hold a public hearing to allow them to present their evidence to the world, and finally declare that the US has committed “wrongful acts” and make recommendations to push the country to improve its behavior.“We want the commission to declare that these systemic actions have violated our rights under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man,” said Levi. “This would carry legal weight across the Americas and help set a precedent that governments can’t continue to violate our rights without consequences.”Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia University, said the commission the activists are petitioning tends to act slowly. The body took five years to review one pollution-focused complaint from a Louisiana community filed in 2005.If the commission issues strong recommendations for the US, he said, US officials will be under no obligation to follow it.“The Trump administration wouldn’t care what this commission says, but the next administration might,” he added.The petition follows news that planet-warming pollution from the US rose in the first half of 2025. It also comes amid widespread attacks on climate protections by the Trump administration, which has launched more than 150 anti-environmental and anti-renewable energy actions since retaking the White House in January.“We are bringing this petition forward now because the science is urgent, the harm is accelerating and our rights are still being violated,” said Levi.Our Children’s Trust has represented young people in an array of state and federal lawsuits. During a two-day hearing in Montana this month, young plaintiffs in one federal case argued that three of Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders should be blocked. The law firm in 2023 notched a landmark win in the lawsuit Held v Montana, when a judge ruled that the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies violated a group of youth plaintiffs’ rights under the state’s constitution.Just hours before Our Children’s Trust filed the petition, Trump addressed the United Nations claiming that the climate crisis was the “greatest con job perpetrated on the world” and “a hoax made up by people with evil intentions”.“This courageous action aims to tell the truth and do something about it,” said James R May, of counsel to Our Children’s Trust. More

    • 188 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Democratic superlawyer Trump can’t silence: ‘We are in the break-glass moment of American history’

      by

      Marc Elias, a prominent Democratic election attorney, has not shied away from standing up to the Trump administration, and has been targeted for retribution this year multiple times as a result.He’s one of scores of lawyers the Trump administration has named in executive actions, joining a list that includes big law firms and attorneys who worked for people Donald Trump considers his opponents.There’s no shortage of reasons why the president would hate Elias and want to shut him down: Elias has for decades represented high-profile Democrats, including the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, and prominent liberal groups, including the Democratic national committee (DNC). He hired the research group that investigated Trump’s ties to Russia in 2016, eventually becoming the Steele dossier. He specializes in election law and won 64 of the 65 cases he worked on in response to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.In one presidential memo, the Trump administration listed “examples of grossly unethical misconduct” by lawyers, singling out Elias for his involvement in the Steele dossier. The law firm Elias used to work for, Perkins Coie, got its own presidential action that cited the dossier. Trump mentioned Elias by name in March at a Department of Justice press conference, calling him a “radical” who was trying to “turn America into a corrupt, communist and third-world country”.While a long list of big-name law firms have capitulated to Trump’s demands, Elias says his firm was built to withstand the pressure and its important to him to use his platform to fight back, though his outspokenness often comes with pushback.The presidential memo, which names Elias as an example of an attorney to target, directed the attorney general to “take all appropriate action to refer for disciplinary action” any attorney that violated ethical guidelines and to “review conduct by attorneys or their law firms in litigation against the Federal Government over the last 8 years”.Elias isn’t aware he’s under investigation, but said he thinks people not taking Trump literally is “one of the great failings” of his time in power.“Every day we wake up and we see another vindictive act by this administration against its political opponents, whether they be in elective office or be in the private sector,” he said. “I think anyone who uses their voice to speak up against Donald Trump needs to be realistic about the nature of this administration and the threats it poses.”He didn’t escape scrutiny during Trump’s first term. He first came up on Trump’s radar, to his knowledge, when the president called him the Democrats’ “best Election stealing lawyer” after Elias went to work on a close Senate election in Florida in 2018.Trump’s second term, though, is like “day and night” from his first, Elias said. The president is now “single-mindedly focused on going after his political opponents” and any walls between Trump and the Department of Justice have crumbled.“It’s a very different thing when he is not just unleashing the hordes of hate on social media, not just activating the rightwing echo chamber, but is talking to people who are in positions of power to actually do something about his obsessions,” Elias said.Despite not posting on X anymore – his decision to stop using the platform prompted conspiracy theories from the right – he is far from quiet about his work and his opinions on the Trump administration. He posts often on other platforms, runs a democracy-focused outlet and files lawsuits against the Trump administration on the regular.“Every day we wake up and we see another vindictive act by this administration against its political opponents, whether they be in elective office or be in the private sector,” he said. “I think anyone who uses their voice to speak up against Donald Trump needs to be realistic about the nature of this administration and the threats it poses.”In response to questions about why the administration has targeted Elias, Davis Ingle, a spokesman for the White House, said Elias “is a crooked hack who was deeply involved in creating a false ‘dossier’ against President Trump on behalf of his crooked client Hillary Clinton, in order to sway the 2016 election in her favor. Marc Elias is a disgraceful swamp creature and President Trump is draining that swamp.”Elias, Democratic superlawyerA lifelong Democrat, Elias helped build up election law to what it is today. When he was a young lawyer, it was a rare specialty – election disputes were typically seen as political issues, not legal ones. Now, post-election disputes are almost entirely legal issues.A 2008 Senate race in Minnesota in which Democrat Al Franken eventually won over Republican Norm Coleman turned the tide. Elias served as Franken’s counsel in what became the longest recount in US history. At the time, some in his party said Franken should concede since Democrats had a strong majority in the Senate and Barack Obama had just won the White House. Elias is always on “team fight”, he said, because “as long as there is a legal fight to be had, we are going to have it”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSome have opined that his fighting posture can be counterproductive to voting rights, especially with the courts growing more conservative, because the cases can create bad precedent. He has argued for increased coordination between outside political action committees and political parties, a move that Trump capitalized on for his ground game in 2024. In 2023, Joe Biden parted ways with Elias, with sources saying at the time that Biden’s team had frustrations and discomfort with Elias’s hard charging and big legal bills. That year, he also stopped representing the DNC.“There was a time where there were people who would say: ‘Marc is too quick to litigate, and you can make bad law.’ And I would say then, and I would certainly say now, what are you saving these laws for, if it is not for this moment? … We are in the break-glass moment of American history when it comes to free and fair elections and democracy and so, no, I don’t have any hesitation about litigating everything that we possibly can to protect elections.”He worked at Perkins Coie until 2021, heading up its political law work and counting a host of big-name Democratic groups and elected officials as his clients. He started his own firm, Elias Law Group, after that, and Democracy Docket, which documents attacks on democracy.The firm is built to “withstand the pressures of Donald Trump” and only takes on clients from Democratic campaigns, the party itself, clients associated with Democratic politics or groups advancing voting rights on a nonpartisan basis. It does not take on corporate clients or clients with government contracts. That stance is part of why Elias thinks his firm itself hasn’t been targeted in a Trump executive action. There are fewer ways to pressure him.Elias was initially surprised at the executive orders targeting law firms because he thought the firms would fight back and win, and Trump would look foolish in the process. He didn’t count on the “cowardice” of firms that instead struck up settlements with Trump, capitulating to the president’s demands by dropping cases and giving massive amounts of pro bono work to conservative causes. The firms that did fight back, including Perkins Coie, have won, but it’s hard to argue Trump didn’t achieve his goals by going after lawyers, he said.“I think he thought, if I can prevent big law from being that role, that’ll make it easier for me to run roughshod over people’s rights. And he’s not wrong about that,” Elias said. “He has actually intimidated a lot of law firms, I think, from taking on causes that they otherwise would have taken on.”When CBS’s 60 Minutes covered the crackdown on lawyers in May, host Scott Pelley noted that “it was nearly impossible to get anyone on camera for this story because of the fear now running through our system of justice”. Elias sat for an interview.Elias has grappled with whether and how to speak up. Over the years, he’s had threats against him and has at times needed to take extra security precautions. He receives a host of antisemitic commentary, including a writeup years ago in a neo-Nazi publication. He’s often listed as part of the “deep state” despite never working in the government, and called a “globalist”, a frequent antisemitic dog whistle, which he typically dismisses as trolling.He worries about his family. He worries about the people who work at his law firm every day, and about his clients, who have at times received blowback for their association with him.“Anyone who tells you that Donald Trump targets them and they don’t care, I think they’re just lying to you,” he said. “I think anyone who says they’re not afraid is either a psychopath or a liar. Of course you’re afraid. Literally the president of the United States, who ran for election on a campaign of vengeance and revenge, is talking about you. Of course you’re worried.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Ryan Routh found guilty of 2024 attempted assassination of Trump in Florida

      by

      The man accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump on his West Palm Beach golf course two months before Trump clinched his second presidency in the 2024 White House election has been found guilty by a jury in Fort Pierce, Florida.Ryan Routh – who now faces up to life in prison at a later sentencing hearing – reportedly tried to use a pen to stab himself in the neck as the guilty verdict was read in court. Officers quickly swarmed him and dragged him out of the courthouse.Jurors in Routh’s trial returned a verdict of guilty on all charges after deliberating for less than three hours.The government charged Routh, 59, with five criminal counts, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and assaulting a Secret Service agent, after an incident on 15 September last year when he was spotted with a rifle hiding in bushes as Trump’s golfing party approached.Prosecutors said Routh, 59, had purchased a military-grade weapon, researched Trump’s movements and utilized a dozen burner phones as part of a plot to kill Trump that was motivated by political grievances.“Today’s guilty verdict against would-be Trump assassin Ryan Routh illustrates the Department of Justice’s commitment to punishing those who engage in political violence,” US attorney general Pam Bondi said in a statement on X.“This attempted assassination was not only an attack on our [now] president, but an affront to our very nation itself,” Bondi added before thanking prosecutors and law enforcement for “protecting” Trump and “securing this important verdict”.In a post on Truth Social, Trump thanked the attorney general, deputy Todd Blanche, and the justice department team for Routh’s conviction, calling it “meticulously handled”. He also thanked “the Judge and Jury for their time, professionalism, and patience”, adding:“This was an evil man with an evil intention, and they caught him. I would also like to thank the Secret Service, Department of Florida Law Enforcement, and the wonderful person who spotted him running from the site of the crime, and acted by following him, and getting all information on car type and license plate to the Sheriff’s Office, IMMEDIATELY, which led to his arrest and conviction.“What incredible instinct and foresight this person had – A very big moment for JUSTICE IN AMERICA!”Routh’s attempt on Trump’s life on 15 September 2024 came just nine weeks after the then presidential candidate narrowly survived a previous attempted assassination at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. In the earlier case, 20-year-old Thomas Crooks fired eight shots at Trump, with one bullet grazing his ear, before being killed by Secret Service counter-snipers, officials have said.At the trial, Routh represented himself despite having no legal expertise. In court filings, he suggested his case should be settled by a golf match.If Trump won, the president could execute Routh, the filing suggested. If Routh won, he said, he would become president.Routh also requested a putting green for match practice and asked for “female strippers” to be present.His self-representation intermittently threatened to derail proceedings. The presiding judge, Aileen Cannon – who dismissed an unrelated case against Trump involving federal classified documents – advised Routh to keep his comments relevant after he remarked that “modern trials seem to eliminate all that is human”. But Routh continued his musings on the “history” of human existence.Routh was once a North Carolina construction worker who had moved to Hawaii and styled himself as a mercenary leader. He tried to recruit soldiers from Afghanistan, Moldova and Taiwan to fight the Russians in Ukraine.Prosecutors said Routh made 17 trips to scope out Trump’s golf course. Over the course of his two-week trial, prosecutors called 38 witnesses, including two bothers who testified about receiving a box from Routh five months earlier that contained wires, pipes and bullets.After investigators arrested Routh, the brothers said they opened the box to find a 12-page letter in which he wrote: “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, but I failed you. I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you now to finish the job.”Routh ultimately was spotted by a Secret Service agent as he hid in nearby shrubbery while aiming a rifle at a member of Trump’s security detail. An agent fired on Routh, who initially fled the scene but was later captured driving north.Police later said the perimeter of the golf course was not fully secured as Trump was not an incumbent president and his visit was not scheduled. Routh was captured after a tipoff from a witness who had made a record of a license plate number of a car into which a man had jumped into after running out of the bushes.Routh chose not to testify in his own defense but instead called three witness, two of whom testified about his character. He told the court that he hoped they would show jurors he was incapable of killing Trump, who retook the Oval Office in January.“Give it your worst,” Routh told Cannon after she warned him about using character witnesses. “We can analyze every moment of my life. We are here to ascertain the truth – we are going to give the jury everything.”He called Marshall Hinshaw, a longtime friend, asking him if his “personal opinion” of Routh was that he was “peaceful and gentle, and nonviolent?”“I would say so,” Hinshaw said. “I would not expect you to harm anyone, Ryan.”Routh asked Hinshaw about his parenting style. “You are not aware of me hitting or spanking my children?” Routh asked.“No, maybe the other way around,” Hinshaw said. As the questioning continued, Cannon said: “This must cease. I am going to ask you to wrap up.” She later warned that she would bar Routh from addressing the jury if his closing argument was “disconnected”.Routh also called Michael McClay, a US Marine Corps veteran and expert in sniper tactics. McClay noted that Routh’s rifle – a Chinese-made variant of the AK-47 – would routinely misfire and that its scope appeared to be attached with putty, tape and glue.“Is there any way you could put a chance of success rate?” Routh asked McClay. McClay replied: “With the severity and seriousness of this, I am not going to guess that.”“I respect that,” Routh said.Routh’s line of questioning went further astray when he asked McClay, “If someone is not dedicated to their mission 100%, is an exit plan vital to those who are cowards?”McClay answered: “I don’t understand.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      White House aide sworn in as interim US attorney after Trump fired predecessor

      by

      Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide, was sworn in on Monday as the interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia after Donald Trump removed her predecessor who declined to bring charges against James Comey, the former FBI director, and Letitia James, the New York attorney general.The appointment of Halligan, who has no prosecutorial experience and was the most junior lawyer on Trump’s personal legal team, alarmed current and former prosecutors about political pressure to indict the president’s political enemies regardless of the strength of the evidence.For months, federal prosecutors investigated whether there was sufficient evidence to act on referrals by Trump officials at other agencies against Comey, for lying to Congress about matters related to the 2016 election, and against James, for mortgage fraud over a house she bought her niece.The prosecutors ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against either Comey or James, leading Trump to issue a series of extraordinary social media posts over the weekend demanding that the justice department seek criminal charges regardless.Halligan was sworn in shortly after noon by Pam Bondi, the attorney general, at justice department headquarters, replacing Erik Siebert, who had declined to bring the prosecutions. Interim US attorneys can only serve for 120 days but Trump is expected to submit her nomination to the Senate for a full term.Halligan’s lack of prosecutorial experience was notable given the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia occupies one of the most sensitive posts at the justice department and oversees around 300 lawyers and staff. With the Pentagon and the CIA nearby, the office also handles sensitive national security cases.The officials who have historically been appointed as US attorney in the eastern district of Virginia have extensive experience in that office. The US attorney during Trump’s first term, G Zachary Terwilliger, had been a prosecutor there for years before being elevated to the top job.Before joining the White House, Halligan was an insurance lawyer in Florida and worked for the Save America Pac before joining the Trump legal team as the most junior lawyer, helping to draft briefs in the federal criminal case over Trump’s mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club.A White House spokesperson defended Halligan’s appointment, saying in a statement: “Lindsey Halligan is exceptionally qualified to serve as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She has a proven track record of success and will serve the country with honor and distinction.”Two of Halligan’s former colleagues on the Trump legal team on the classified documents case credited her as a fast learner who provided meaningful contributions in filings. Generally, they said, they were happy to have her on the team.Halligan was at Mar-a-Lago when the FBI executed a search warrant to retrieve classified documents and, as the Florida-barred lawyer on Trump’s team, she was responsible for filing a request to have a so-called special master conduct a review of the materials that had been seized.According to a person familiar with the episode, Halligan found her account on the Pacer was not set up to file the special master request electronically and had to deliver the brief in person.During the drive from Ft Lauderdale, where she was based, to the US district court in West Palm Beach, she got stuck in traffic on the highway and realized she would not make it to the courthouse before it closed for the weekend. Halligan did a U-turn and drove back to Ft Lauderdale, where the case got assigned to the Trump-appointed US district judge Aileen Cannon.Halligan attended the subsequent court hearing on the special master request as the third-chair lawyer, one of the only times she was at counsel’s table in a federal courtroom.Within months, Halligan was in Trump’s political orbit.When Trump hosted a watch party for the 2022 midterms at Mar-a-Lago, Halligan sat at Trump’s table with Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s longtime confidant and personal lawyer; Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy; and Sergio Gor, director of the White House presidential personnel office. More