Letitia James

Subterms

    Latest story

    263 Shares64 Views

    ‘We will not be bullied’: House Democrats involved in video to troops confirm FBI is seeking to question them – live

    by

    Four Democratic members of the US House, who appeared in a video telling service members to “refuse illegal orders”, confirmed that the FBI has requested interviews with them. All of the lawmakers in the video are former members of the military or intelligence community.Today, the representatives issued statements, saying that Donald Trump is using the FBI “as a tool to intimidate and harass” them.“We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship,” representatives Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, and Chris Deluzio wrote.In a lengthy social media post, Donald Trump wrote on Thuesday that his attempt to hold on to the House through gerrymandering ahead of the 2026 midterms is not yet done.“It looks like the Indiana Senate Republicans will be coming back in two weeks to take up Redistricting,” Trump reported.He went on to threaten any state lawmakers who fail not support the effort to tilt the electoral map in Indiana more in favor of Republicans with primary challenges.“I am glad to hear the Indiana House is stepping up to do the right thing, and I hope the Senate finds the Votes. If they do, I will make sure that all of those people supporting me win their Primaries, and go on to Greatness but, if they don’t, I will partner with the incredibly powerful MAGA Grassroots Republicans to elect STRONG Republicans,” the president wrote on his social media platform.Interior secretary Doug Burgum announced today the new cost of an annual national parks pass for international tourists.For US residents, the cost of a yearly pass (which grants access to 63 of America’s national parks) will stay at $80. But for those visiting, they’ll have to fork out $250.When visiting any of the 11 most visited parks, non-residents will also pay a new $100 per person fee (in addition to the usual entry fee). There will also be five extra “fee free days” for US residents.Washington DC’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, said today she would not seek re-election. Instead, she will finish out the remainder of her third term and leave office in January 2027.Bowser, once a vocal critic of Donald Trump, found herself complying when he returned to the White House in January, launched a federal takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department, and deployed national guard troops to the district earlier this year. While critics blamed Bowser for acquiescing to the administration, supporters felt she exercised tactical soft-power given the legal limitations of leading the nation’s capital.In a video posted to social media, Bowser noted that her administration “brought our city back from the ravages of a global pandemic, and summoned our collective strength to stand tall against police who threaten our very autonomy while preserving home rule that is our North Star.”Bowser added that she’s “cherished the opportunity” to serve her hometown for 10 years, and has “happily given all my passion and energy to the job that I love”. Notably, she did not say which candidate she would endorse to succeed her.In September, I reported on how Bowser had to navigate her political summer stand-off with Trump.Donald Trump may have inadvertently pardoned any citizen who committed voter fraud in 2020 when he granted a pardon to Rudy Giuliani and other allies for their efforts to overturn the election, legal experts say.The pardons of Giuliani and others who participated in the fake elector scheme earlier this month were largely symbolic since the federal government dismissed its criminal cases once Trump was elected. Many of those pardoned have faced criminal charges at the state level.But, the federal pardon could wind up having a big effect on people like Matthew Alan Laiss, who is accused of voting in both Pennsylvania and Florida in the 2020 election. According to a federal indictment handed down in September, Laiss moved from Pennsylvania to Florida in August of 2020 and voted first with a mail-in ballot in Pennsylvania and then in person in Florida on election day. Both votes were for Trump, Laiss’ lawyers wrote in court documents. He has pleaded not guilty.The case is still in its early stages. Last week, Laiss’ lawyers, public defenders Katrina Young and Elizabeth Toplin, argued that the charges should be thrown out because Trump had pardoned him.They argued that Trump’s 7 November pardon was sweeping. It applies to any US citizen for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any state or state official, in connection with the 2020 presidential election.” And while it lists a number of people the pardon specifically applies to, it also says the pardon is not limited to those named.That language is so broad, lawyers for Laiss wrote, it also applies to their client.Elissa Slotkin, one of the two Democratic senators in the video to troops, said today she was aware that the FBI’s counterterrorism division “appeared to open an inquiry” into her.She wrote:
    The President directing the FBI to target us is exactly why we made this video in the first place. He believes in weaponizing the federal government against his perceived enemies and does not believe laws apply to him or his Cabinet. He uses legal harassment as an intimidation tactic to scare people out of speaking up.
    A reminder that after the video was published online, Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of “seditious behavior, punishable by death” in a post on Truth Social. He also re-shared several comments from other users calling for the arrest, trial and execution of the Democratic members of Congress.For her part, Slotkin remained resolute today. “This isn’t just about a video,” she said in her statement. “This is not the America I know, and I’m not going to let this next step from the FBI stop me from speaking up for my country and our Constitution.”Four Democratic members of the US House, who appeared in a video telling service members to “refuse illegal orders”, confirmed that the FBI has requested interviews with them. All of the lawmakers in the video are former members of the military or intelligence community.Today, the representatives issued statements, saying that Donald Trump is using the FBI “as a tool to intimidate and harass” them.“We swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship,” representatives Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, and Chris Deluzio wrote.Mitch McConnell, the Republican senator from Kentucky and former majority leader, has critiqued a possible US co-authored peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, which might require land concessions.“The most basic reality on the ground is that the price of peace matters. A deal that rewards aggression wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on,” he lawmaker wrote in a post on X. “America isn’t a neutral arbiter, and we shouldn’t act like one.”Last week, McConnell said that Vladimir Putin has “spent the entire year trying to play President Trump for a fool”. He added that the president “ought to find new advisors” if administration officials are “more concerned with appeasing Putin than securing real peace”. In response, vice-president JD Vance said that every criticism of the peace deal “either misunderstands the framework or misstates some critical reality on the ground”.It’s almost 1:30pm in Washington, and here’s were things stand today.

    As he prepared to pardon two lucky turkeys, Waddle and Gobble, the president said he thought a peace deal on Russia’s war in Ukraine was getting very close but gave no other details. “We’re going to get there,” Donald Trump said. Earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that “tremendous progress” had been made towards a deal. In a post on X, she added that “a few delicate, but not insurmountable” details remain and “will require further talks between Ukraine, Russia, and the United States”.

    The FBI has requested interviews with the six Democratic members of Congress who took part in a video where they told members of the military to “refuse illegal orders”, according to Reuters. Citing an unnamed justice department official, Reuters reports that the FBI is asking for interviews with senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin, as well as House representatives Maggie Goodlander, Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, and Chris Deluzio. The FBI declined to comment when the Guardian reached out about the latest report.

    For his part, senator Kelly called the Pentagon’s announcement that it is investigating the him for possible breaches of military law for taking part in the video as an act of “intimidation”. In an interview with Rachel Maddow on MS NOW, Kelly added: “I don’t think there’s anything more patriotic than standing up for the constitution. And right here, right now, this week, the president clearly is not doing that.”
    In his remarks before the pardoning just then, Trump also said he thought a deal on Russia’s war in Ukraine was getting “very close” but gave no other details. “We’re going to get there,” he said.“I think we’re getting very close to a deal, we’ll find out … I think we’re making progress,” he added.My colleagues over on the Europe blog report that a short while ago Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv was ready to move forward with a US-backed peace deal, and that he was prepared to discuss its sensitive points with Trump in talks he said should include European allies.In a speech to the ‘coalition of the willing’, a copy of which was seen by Reuters, the Ukrainian president urged European leaders to hash out a framework for deploying a “reassurance force” to Ukraine and to continue supporting Kyiv for as long as Moscow shows no willingness to end its war.Gobble is officially pardoned. Along with Waddle, he’ll live out the rest of his days in North Carolina. More

    More stories

    • 175 Shares85 Views

      in US Politics

      The Comey and James dismissals are a reminder of Trump’s lawlessness | Austin Sarat

      by

      Monday brought good news for two of Donald Trump’s most hated enemies: the former FBI director James Comey, and the New York state attorney general, Letitia James. A federal judge dismissed the sham indictments the administration had obtained against them.Judge Cameron McGowan Currie reminded the president and his attorney general of the great lessons of a society governed by the rule of law: how things are done matters as much as what is done. Without fair procedures, no one can be safe from the arbitrary exercise of government power.This is never more apparent than when leaders target their political opponents and seek revenge against those who do not fall in line. The US is learning this lesson in real time as the Trump administration politicizes prosecution.Recall the president’s infamous 20 September direction to Pam Bondi, the US attorney general.“Pam,” Trump posted to Truth Social, “I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as the last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.’“Then,” he continued, “we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past … I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot.”The president ended by making it clear what he wanted and why he wanted it. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”Two days later, Bondi installed Halligan as interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia with an apparent mandate to go after Comey, James and others. Several days after that, Comey was indicted in federal court, accused of lying to Congress; the next month, James was indicted in a mortgage case. Both denied wrongdoing and said the cases were intended to punish them for past clashes with him.On Monday, Currie delivered a decisive rebuke to Trump and Bondi when she threw out the Comey and James indictments. She found that Halligan’s appointment violated the clear language of the statute governing such appointments and of the constitution itself.As a result, all of the actions flowing from her appointment, including the indictments of Comey and James, were “unlawful exercises of executive power”. While Currie left the door open for the administration to refile indictments against Comey and James, in Comey’s case, the time allowed under the applicable statute of limitations has run out.As the Washington Post notes, Currie’s decision is just the latest in a series of judicial rulings “disqualifying Trump’s interim U.S. attorney picks in New Jersey, Nevada, and Los Angeles”. Like her colleagues, Currie made clear that Trump’s Department of Justice had again distinguished itself by its dangerous combination of lawlessness and incompetence.Her opinion is good news for defenders of the rule of law. It should also strengthen the hand of other judges who want to push back against the administration’s vindictive prosecutions.Judges, like Currie, are never eager to dismiss an indictment issued by a grand jury. They are inclined to trust the grand jury process and are reluctant to cast aside the investment of time and resources that a good prosecutor makes in securing an indictment.In 1988, the supreme court held that, in most cases, dismissal of an indictment is appropriate only if errors in the handling of the grand jury process prejudiced a defendant by “substantially” influencing the decision to indict or raising “grave doubt” about whether the decision was free from such influence.As the attorney James M Burnham has written, this high bar “plays a central role in the ever-expanding, vague nature of federal criminal law because it largely eliminates the possibility of purely legal judicial opinions construing criminal statutes”. Burnham wants judges to be more active in policing indictments and making sure they are legally justified.Currie did just that. She found that Halligan lacked the authority to seek indictments of Comey or James because the justice department had not followed the applicable law governing the appointment of interim US attorneys. That law is, in her words, “unambiguous”.It allows the attorney general to appoint an interim US attorney, who can serve for a period of 120 days. It falls to a federal district court, not the administration, to choose a successor or extend the term of the current interim appointee – as happened with Halligan’s predecessor.The purpose of the law, Currie noted, was to prevent the president from circumventing the constitutional requirement that US attorneys go through a Senate confirmation process by making a series of interim appointments back-to-back.But Senate confirmation takes time. Alas, how inconvenient when the president demands that his enemies must be brought to justice now.Bondi may have known what the law required when she appointed Halligan to do the president’s bidding. But she seems to interpret her role as serving Trump and pushing the outer boundaries of the law until a judge has the temerity to tell her she can’t.Like federal judges in other cases, that is what Currie did. Along the way, the judge noted that Halligan was a “White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience”, who appeared alone before the grand jury after career prosecutors in her office concluded that neither had committed any crime.In the end, the judge, having pointed out the lawlessness and incompetence that accompanied Halligan’s appointment and the Comey and James indictments, reminded Bondi and the president that the legal requirements governing appointments, as the supreme court once said, are “more than a matter of etiquette or protocol”. No matter how much the president insists or how many all-caps messages he posts to Truth Social, those requirements cannot be discarded, she concluded, to suit the president, since they are “among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme”.

      Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty More

    • 150 Shares60 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge throws out criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James

      by

      A federal judge threw out the criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James on Monday, concluding that the prosecutor handling the cases was unlawfully appointed.Lindsey Halligan, who Trump named the interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia in September, had “no lawful authority to present the indictment” against the former FBI director and New York attorney general, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, wrote in her opinion.“I conclude that the attorney general’s attempt to install Ms Halligan as Interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia was invalid and that Ms Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,” Currie, who was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton, wrote in her opinion. She added that “all actions flowing from Ms Halligan’s defective appointment” were “unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside”.The decision is a major win for Comey, who was charged with lying to Congress five years ago, and James, who was charged with mortgage fraud. Both unequivocally denied wrongdoing and said the cases were a thinly veiled effort by the Trump administration to punish them for opposing Trump.“I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country,” James said in a statement. “I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”Comey also praised the decision.“I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence,” he said in a recorded video. “This case mattered to me personally, obviously, but it matters most because a message has to be sent that the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies.“I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again and my attitude is gonna be the same. I’m innocent, I am not afraid, and I believe in an independent federal judiciary,” he added.US attorneys must be confirmed by the Senate. Federal law allows the attorney general to appoint someone to serve on an acting basis for 120 days while a nomination is pending. Once that 120 day period is up, the law allows the judges on the district court where the prosecutor handles cases to appoint a top prosecutor.Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert, began serving in the role on an interim basis in January. In May, at the end of the 120-day period, the judges in the eastern district of Virginia chose to extend his appointment. In September, Siebert was forced out of his role as it reportedly determined there was insufficient evidence to charge James with a crime. Trump installed Halligan, a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience in the role and Comey was indicted on charges of lying to Congress days later. Halligan then indicted James on allegations of mortgage fraud shortly after that.The Trump administration argued that the attorney general could simply revisit someone new every 120 days, but Currie said that would simply allow the attorney general to indefinitely appoint someone on an interim basis. The “text, structure, and history” of the law do not support the government’s argument she wrote.Currie dismissed both cases “without prejudice”, which means the government could theoretically try to bring the charges again under a properly appointed US attorney. But it is unclear if they could even do that in Comey’s case because the statute of limitations for the crime he is charged with passed on 30 September 2025.“The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment,” said Patrick Fitzgerald, a lawyer for Comey. “The day when Mr Comey was indicted was a sad day for our government. Honest prosecutors were fired to clear the path for an unlawful prosecution. But today an independent judiciary vindicated our system of laws not just for Mr Comey but for all American citizens.”Halligan personally presented both cases to the grand jury and has been under intense scrutiny since taking her position. Last week, a judge overseeing the case questioned whether she had properly followed routine procedure in obtaining an indictment in Comey’s case. Prosecutors handling the case say they followed appropriate procedure.“The court’s order acknowledges what’s been clear about this case from the beginning. The president went to extreme measures to substitute one of his allies to bring these baseless charges after career prosecutors refused,” Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for James, said in a statement. “This case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged. We will continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.” More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      How Trump is weaponizing the DoJ to ‘bully, prosecute, punish and silence’ his foes

      by

      Donald Trump’s intense pressure on the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to charge key foes with crimes based on dubious evidence and his ongoing investigations of other political enemies is hurting the rule of law in the US and violating departmental policies, which scholars and ex-prosecutors say may help scuttle some charges.They also voice dismay about charges filed against ex-FBI director James Comey and Letitia James, the New York attorney general, by Lindsey Halligan, the ex-White House lawyer and novice prosecutor, who Trump installed in a key US attorney post after forcing out a veteran prosecutor who deemed the cases weak.Comey, charged with lying to Congress about an FBI leak and obstruction of Congress, and James, charged with bank fraud and false statements to a financial unit, have pleaded not guilty and are garnering hefty support from ex-DoJ officials and legal experts challenging the paltry evidence against them.Over 100 ex-DoJ officials filed an amicus brief on 27 October mirroring part of Comey’s legal defense that his prosecution was a “vindictive” one, and should be dropped given longstanding departmental policies barring such legal tactics. Trump’s animus against Comey stems from the FBI’s inquiry of Russia’s role in helping Trump’s campaign in 2016 when Comey led the FBI.James Pearce, an ex-DoJ lawyer and a senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group who helped organize the amicus, said: “It explains that the justice department’s policies seek to ensure fair and impartial prosecutions – which the constitution’s due process clause requires. Unfortunately, the public record suggests that the Comey prosecution neither adheres to those policies nor comports with the constitutional obligations underpinning them.”Other amicus briefs supporting Comey were filed in late October by groups including the Protect Democracy Project and Democracy Defenders Fund.View image in fullscreenFurther contesting the Comey and James charges, Democracy Defenders Fund sent a letter to the DoJ inspector general signed by ethics advisors to presidents Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama blasting Trump’s move to make Halligan an interim US attorney and file charges against them, and seeking an investigation of the prosecutions.“After Watergate, no precept was more central to the re-professionalization of the justice department than distancing the White House from decision making about individual prosecutions,” said Peter Shane, who teaches constitutional law at New York University“Trump’s conspicuous public involvement in triggering prosecutions against his enemies along with the seemingly paltry ‘evidence’ against Comey and James, in particular, is likely to mean that at least some of these cases will be dismissed before trial. There is also a serious legal question whether Halligan has been legitimately appointed to the USA position in Virginia.”Other legal experts say the justice department has been “weaponized” to further Trump’s revenge drive against Comey, James and other current and former officials who Trump blames for his legal problems including two impeachments and federal charges that he tried to subvert his 2020 election loss.“The overt and explicit ‘weaponization’ of the justice department, in defiance of the professional judgment of career prosecutors that the criminal prosecutions are unwarranted, is the worst type of corruption of the rule of law,” said Philip Lacovara, who was counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor.View image in fullscreen“The department’s principles of federal prosecution explicitly prohibit federal prosecutors from considering partisan and political factors in deciding whether to pursue criminal charges. But Trump has made these considerations a primary motive for bringing down the weight of the federal law enforcement apparatus on the heads of his political enemies.”Lacovara’s points were underscored by how the DoJ has seemed to move in lockstep with Trump’s suggestions that foes he’s publicly attacked on Truth Social and in other public and private ways should be prosecuted or investigated.Notably, Trump implored Pam Bondi, the attorney general, in late September on Truth Social to bring charges against Comey, James and Adam Schiff, a Democratic senator, not long before the DoJ indicted the first two.Just a day after Trump had forced out the Virginia prosecutor who declined to indict key Trump foes, Trump upped the pressure on Bondi“What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia???” Trump wrote. “They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” stressing that “we can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”In his missive addressed to “Pam”, Trump hyped the stakes for him: “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!A person familiar with the inquiry of Schiff, and reports suggest that pressures from some DoJ leaders have increased on the US attorney in Maryland who has been exploring charging Schiff with mortgage fraud, but has lacked sufficient evidence to do so. Schiff and his attorney have attacked the investigation as vindictive and politically driven.The weekend before Comey’s indictment, Schiff hit back at Trump’s Truth Social posts targeting him. “There’s no hiding the political retaliation and weaponization. It’s all out in the open.”Trump’s ire at Schiff stems from when Schiff was a member of the House and served as manager during Trump’s first impeachment.Similarly, Trump’s hatred of James, who the DoJ charged soon after Comey, was fueled by a successful civil fraud case that her office brought against Trump’s real estate empire in 2024 that initially had a hefty $500m penalty.The penalty was overturned last month, but Trump and his two eldest sons remain barred for a few years from holding leadership posts with the family real-estate behemoth.Another Trump foe, John Bolton, ex-national security adviser, who has been a vocal Trump critic, was charged last month by Maryland’s US attorney with mishandling classified information. Legal experts note the investigation of Bolton began during the Biden administration and may be stronger than the cases against other Trump enemies.Bolton has pleaded not guilty.View image in fullscreenWithin the DoJ, a key figure in pushing hard for charges against some of Trump’s avowed enemies has been Ed Martin, a combative lawyer with strong Maga credentials including promoting bogus claims of election fraud in 2020 and legal work he did for some of the January 6 rioters.Martin displayed his Maga bona fides the day before the Capitol attack, when he told a rally of fervent Trump backers: “Thank you for standing for our president. But remember, what they’re stealing is not just an election. It’s our future.”Martin was originally tapped by Trump to be US attorney for DC, but after serving in that role on an interim basis, Trump withdrew his nomination for Senate approval after a key Republican senator indicated he wouldn’t support him.Soon after moving to the DoJ in May, Martin was put in charge of a “weaponization working group”, to go after alleged weaponization by DoJ under Democratic presidents.Martin’s radical views about prosecuting or publicly shaming Trump foes were palpable when he told reporters while exiting the US attorney’s post that if people “can’t be charged, we will name them … and in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed”.Bondi tapped Martin over the summer to investigate the Schiff allegations, and to that end he met with Bill Pulte, the federal housing finance agency director, who had sent a criminal referral in May for Schiff to the DoJ, according to NBC.Boosting his stature at the DoJ, Martin has also been given the titles special attorney for mortgage fraud, associate deputy attorney general and pardon attorney.Former prosecutors raise strong concerns about Martin’s various DoJ roles including spurring some indictments of Trump’s foes.“His chief value to the administration is to go after people Trump has identified as enemies by any means or tactics he can find, whether legally sound or not,” said Mike Gordon, a senior DoJ prosecutor on January 6 cases and one of about 20 prosecutors ousted by Trump’s DoJ.Other ex-prosecutors see Martin’s modus operandi as dangerous.“Ed Martin’s role as both the pardon attorney and head of the weaponization working group is concerning in light of a long list of public comments he has made,” said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for eastern Michigan who now teaches law at the University of Michigan.“His letter writing campaign while he was serving as interim US attorney, demanding answers to questions from Democratic politicians, members of the media, and university leaders also suggests a political agenda that is antithetical to the independence of the justice department.”More broadly, Lacovara calls DoJ’s compliance with Trump’s demands to charge his enemies “a truly Orwellian shift in generations-long justice department tradition: Trump has managed to condemn investigations into his personal conduct by non-political professional prosecutors, while simultaneously and expressly commanding his political appointees in the justice department to prosecute his perceived political enemies.”Democrats in Congress too are irate over Trump’s use of DoJ for revenge against foes.“When Richard Nixon conducted retaliation against his political enemies, he did it in secret and tried to cover his tracks,” said Jamie Raskin, a Democratic representative of Maryland.“But Trump’s campaign of political persecution to bully, prosecute, punish and silence his political foes is taking place in broad daylight and on TV … I have faith, however, that judges and juries at the district level, unlike Bondi and Halligan, will uphold the rule of law.”Looking ahead, Michael Bromwich, ex-DoJ inspector general, said: “The flimsy cases being brought against people who Trump considers his enemies will fail, but the damage to the system of criminal justice and the Department of Justice will endure. That will be the legacy of the people who currently run the DoJ as a subagency of the White House.” More

    • 188 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Substantial’ federal layoffs begin as Congress remains deadlocked over funding to end shutdown – live

      by

      The Guardian has independently confirmed that reductions in force (RIFs) are under way at the following departments and agencies:

      Department of Education

      Department of Health and Human Services

      Department of Homeland Security (specifically the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency)

      Department of the Treasury
      Certain agencies haven’t immediately responded to the Guardian’s request for comment, but other media outlets have reported layoffs are expected at the following:

      Environmental Protection Agency

      Department of Energy

      Department of the Interior

      Department of Housing and Urban Development
      Donald Trump just started an Oval Office announcement on a deal with the British-based drug maker Asta Zeneca, for a “most-favored-nation” drug pricing model aimed at making prescription medicines more affordable, by boasting that he would have struck the deal sooner, but “we were interrupted by a rigged election”.Trump went on to repeat the wildly false claim that the discounted prices for American consumers would reduce the price of prescription drugs by up to 1,000%.As Daniel Dale of CNN has explained: “Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would mean that Americans would get paid to acquire their medications rather than paying for them.” A health economist, Timothy McBride, told the network Trump’s claims are “just not logical,” since a 500% price reduction would mean that a drug that now costs $100 would cost be available for free, with consumers given a $400 rebate.The actual deal includes cutting prices for the government’s Medicaid health plan for low-income Americans and discounted prices through a “TrumpRx” website the president said.AstraZeneca’s chief executive Pascal Soriot stood near Trump in the gold-clad Oval Office as the president made the announcement.Pfizer previously agreed to drop prescription drug prices in the Medicaid program for lower-income Americans to what it charges in other developed countries in exchange for relief from tariffs threatened by Trump.Americans currently pay by far the most for prescription medicines, often nearly three times more than in other developed nations, and Trump has been pressuring drugmakers to lower their prices to what patients pay elsewhere or face stiff tariffs.Last month, he threatened 100% tariffs on drug makers, increasing pressure on the pharmaceutical industry to agree to price cuts and shift manufacturing to the US.Writing on his social media platform, Donald Trump just announced that, in response to what he called China’s “extraordinarily aggressive position on Trade” and new export restrictions, he intends to “impose a Tariff of 100% on China, over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying” starting on 1 November.The same day, he adds, “we will impose Export Controls on any and all critical software.”That date is after Trump’s planned meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.Our colleague Callum Jones has more on the latest friction in Trump’s trade war with China.The wave of layoffs at federal agencies has reportedly reached the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) now, according to the PBS correspondent Lisa Desjardins.Federal prosecutors in Maryland could seek criminal charges next week against Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, report the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter Carol Leonnig and her colleague Ken Dilanian for MSNBC.A grand jury in Maryland has been hearing evidence related to claims that Bolton, a former ally of Trump turned harsh critic, improperly kept classified national security information in his Maryland home.The journalists also report that Ed Martin, a Republican operative who served briefly as Trump’s acting US attorney in the District of Columbia now running the justice department’s “Weaponization Working Group”, has met multiple times with the Trump-appointed acting US attorney in Maryland, Kelly Hayes, on the Bolton case.An indictment on Bolton for illegally retaining classified documents would be the third of a Trump critic in recent weeks, and would echo the indictment of New York’s attorney general, Tish James, in accusing critics of the president of committing crimes he was indicted for after his first term.I’ve been chatting to Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor in the southern district of New York, about the indictment of Letitia James.Roth said it was “extremely distressing” to see prosecutions brought against the president’s perceived political enemies.“I can’t say that I was surprised that the department [under attorney general Pam Bondi] pursued these charges against Tish James,” she added. “That doesn’t lessen my distress … particularly in light of what had been longstanding Department of Justice policy not to pursue an indictment unless prosecutors were convinced that they would be able to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.”Lindsey Halligan, the handpicked and newly installed US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, has pursued the charges against James and former FBI director James Comey, and Roth notes that we could see a wider effort to bring charges against the president’s adversaries in districts throughout the country that are now run by Trump-friendly prosecutors.Much like the charges brought against Comey, Roth underscored that the crimes that James is being accused of are very difficult to prove “even under the best stances” because they require proof of “criminal intent as opposed to an honest mistake or negligence”.The Guardian has independently confirmed that reductions in force (RIFs) are under way at the following departments and agencies:

      Department of Education

      Department of Health and Human Services

      Department of Homeland Security (specifically the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency)

      Department of the Treasury
      Certain agencies haven’t immediately responded to the Guardian’s request for comment, but other media outlets have reported layoffs are expected at the following:

      Environmental Protection Agency

      Department of Energy

      Department of the Interior

      Department of Housing and Urban Development
      The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) confirmed to the Guardian that employees across “multiple divisions” have received reduction-in-force notices. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said this was “a direct consequence of the Democrat-led government shutdown”.He added that HHS under the Biden administration “became a bloated bureaucracy, growing its budget by 38% and its workforce by 17%”.Nixon said that all employees receiving RIF notices were “designated non-essential by their respective divisions”.“HHS continues to close wasteful and duplicative entities, including those that are at odds with the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda,” he added.The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest union representing federal government workers, has condemned the mass layoffs announced by the White House budget office.“It is disgraceful that the Trump administration has used the government shutdown as an excuse to illegally fire thousands of workers who provide critical services to communities across the country,” said Everett Kelley, the union’s president.AFGE has already filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the firings, and a hearing is set for Thursday, 16 October. “We will not stop fighting until every reduction-in-force notice is rescinded,” Kelley added.The Department of Education has also confirmed to the Guardian that their employees will be affected by the reductions in force.An office of management and budget (OMB) spokesperson told the Guardian that the reductions in force that have begun are “substantial”.The official didn’t confirm an exact number, but we’re bringing you the latest as we hear from different agencies and departments about how they stand to be affected. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The mortgage fraud case against Letitia James is ‘bupkis’, experts say

      by

      A prosecutor installed by Donald Trump may have been able to secure an indictment against the New York attorney general, Letitia James, but actually obtaining a conviction may be an uphill battle, legal experts say.Even before a grand jury handed down the indictment on Thursday, there was already deep skepticism about possible charges. Career prosecutors in the US attorney’s office for the eastern district of Virginia had looked at accusations James committed mortgage fraud and concluded there was no probable cause to charge the case. Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s handpicked interim US attorney, nonetheless went ahead and presented the case to the grand jury. Her decision to do so reportedly caught top justice department officials off-guard.The indictment handed down on Thursday charges James with bank fraud and making a false statement when she secured a mortgage to buy a second home in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2020. As part of the purchase, James signed a rider that indicated she would use it as her second home and prohibited her from renting it out, according to the indictment. James proceeded to then rent out the home, prosecutors allege. By lying on the mortgage statement, prosecutors say, James secured a better mortgage rate and a seller credit that saved her about $18,933 over the life of the loan.“In this case, prosecutors will be required to show that at the moment James signed the mortgage paperwork, she was aware of the provision regarding a secondary home, that she intended to use it for some different purpose, and that she intended to obtain a financial benefit as a result of her deceit,” said Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney for the eastern district of Michigan. “That can be very difficult for a prosecutor to do because we cannot read other people’s minds. Anyone who has ever participated in a mortgage closing is familiar with the daunting pile of papers they put in front of you.”The second-home rider James signed does not prohibit renting the home outright, Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote in a blogpost. Instead, the rider prevents the owner from giving control over rental decisions to someone else. The agreement also only imposes the restriction starting one year after the agreement. The indictment made public on Thursday does not say when James rented the home or for how long.The rider also includes an exemption for “extenuating circumstances”, Levitin noted, pointing out that the mortgage was obtained in August 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic.“I’m unaware of the federal government having previously charged anyone for fraud based on renting out a second home,” Levitin wrote in the post on Credit Slips. “It’s clear why the career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia refused to bring a case: James doesn’t appear to have made any misrepresentation in her mortgage because the mortgage does not directly prohibit rentals.”James has forcefully denied the charges. Last month, Trump publicly admonished the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, to indict her, along with the former FBI director James Comey and California senator Adam Schiff.“These charges are baseless, and the president’s own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost. The president’s actions are a grave violation of our Constitutional order and have drawn sharp criticism from members of both parties,” James said in a statement on Thursday evening.Trump’s public statements, combined with the conclusion of career prosecutors about a lack of probable cause, make it likely James will bring a selective prosecution argument to try to get the case thrown out.“Normally, a claim [that] this is a vindictive prosecution does not work,” said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School. But, he added: “You don’t usually have the president calling for these sort of things.”The charges against James come as William Pulte, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has deployed mortgage filings to attack Trump’s rivals. In April, Pulte, a staunch Trump ally, sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice regarding two different real estate transactions involving James. Neither of the transactions in the referral were the ones actually charged this week.Pulte has also accused Schiff of mortgage fraud as he has the Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, whom Trump is trying to remove from the central bank. In Cook’s case, Pulte has made an allegation similar to the one against James, alleging she rented out a property she indicated was her second home on mortgage documents.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlso unusual in James’s case is the amount of money she is said to have benefited from because of the fraud. Typically, investigators in the inspector general’s office at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which handles mortgage fraud investigations, pursue cases where there are substantial losses to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises that support the housing market by guaranteeing mortgages.Even the most junior prosecutor in a US attorney’s office would turn down a case with a loss amount that low, said Jacqueline Kelly, a former federal prosecutor in New York who is now a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner.“It would never be signed off on by a supervisor with a loss amount that low,” she said. The low loss amount could also bolster James’s claims of selective prosecution. “When she has to prove that someone similarly situated would not have been prosecuted, she is on really strong ground there because if you look at other cases charged under these same statutes, you’re not going to find one similar to this at all.”While the length of James’s loan is not clear, if it was a standard 30-year mortgage she would have defrauded the government out of about $633 each year.“That’s bupkis,” said one former federal prosecutor who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid professional repercussions. “Are you really going to believe when you get up there that the attorney general of New York would commit this willfulness over $600 a year?“It’s a race as to whether this is weaker than the Comey case or stronger because they’re the two weakest cases I’ve ever seen in my life.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Ex-FBI director James Comey to appear in court on lying to Congress charge

      by

      The former FBI director James Comey is set to make his first appearance in court on Wednesday in connection with federal charges that he lied to Congress in 2020.Comey will be booked and fingerprinted, which is normal practice for defendants, at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, before being arraigned and formally read the charges against him by US district judge Michael Nachmanoff. Nachmanoff was appointed to the federal bench by Joe Biden in 2021.The FBI has reportedly been weighing whether to submit Comey to a “perp walk” in which they would parade him in front of media cameras. An FBI agent was reportedly relieved of duty for refusing to participate in such an effort.The brief indictment handed down by a federal grand jury on 25 September accused Comey of making a false statement and obstructing a congressional investigation in connection with his September 2020 testimony to Congress. While the details of the charge remain unclear, they appear to be related to his claim that he never authorized anyone in the FBI to be an anonymous source in news stories. “I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial. And keep the faith,” Comey said in a video statement the night the charges were filed.The case against Comey marks a significant step in Donald Trump’s effort to politicize the justice department and punish his political enemies. Even though the attorney general and top justice department officials are political appointees, the department has typically operated at arm’s length from the White House in order to preserve independent decision-making necessary to uphold the rule of law. Trump has upended that norm and has said more charges are coming.Trump fired Comey in 2017 and has fumed at the former FBI director for years for his role in investigating connections between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. Comey’s firing eventually prompted the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to take over the investigation. Mueller’s final report detailed numerous instances in which Trump attempted to influence the investigation.Trump forced out Erik Siebert, the top federal prosecutor in the eastern district of Virginia, after Siebert determined there wasn’t sufficient evidence to bring charges against Letitia James, New York’s attorney general. At Trump’s request, the justice department replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide who was part of Trump’s personal legal team and has no prosecutorial experience.Career prosecutors in the eastern district of Virginia reportedly presented Halligan with a memo outlining why charges against Comey were not warranted. In an unusual move, Halligan presented the case herself to a federal grand jury, which handed down the indictment just a few days after she started on the job.No career prosecutors from the eastern district of Virginia have entered an appearance in the case. Instead, two prosecutors from the eastern district of North Carolina, Nathaniel Lemons and Gabriel Diaz, will join Halligan in handling the case.Two other prosecutors in the eastern district of Virginia have been fired since the charges against Comey were filed. The prosecutors, Maya Song, a top Siebert deputy, and Michael Ben’Ary, a top national security prosecutor, both at one point had worked under Lisa Monaco, a top official in the justice department under the Biden administration.Trump has also put pressure on the office to file charges against James over specious allegations that the New York attorney general committed mortgage fraud.“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump told Bondi in a brazen 20 September post on Truth Social, asking her to bring charges against Comey, James, and California senator Adam Schiff. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”Elizabeth Yusi, a top prosecutor in the office, plans to present the case to Halligan soon that there is no probable cause to file charges against James. Colleagues expect Yusi to be fired. More