pam bondi

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump sues California over transgender athletes in girls’ school sports

      by

      The Trump administration has sued California over its policies allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ school sports, alleging that their participation violates federal anti-discrimination laws.The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, claims that California’s policies violate Title IX, which affords legal protection against sex discrimination.Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, in a statement took aim at Gavin Newsom, California’s governor and a Trump antagonist seen as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028. Newsom in a March podcast interview with the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk called transgender participation in girls’ sports “deeply unfair”.“Not only is it ’deeply unfair,’ it is also illegal under federal law,” Bondi said in a statement. “This Department of Justice will continue its fight to protect equal opportunities for women and girls in sports.”A spokesperson for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump, a Republican, has signed a series of executive orders restricting transgender rights, including a February directive to strip federal funding for any school that allows transgender women or girls to compete in female sports.The suit comes weeks after the education department announced it had found California allegedly violated the law by permitting trans girls to compete on girls’ sports teams, and proposed that the state strip trans athletes of their records and awards and bar trans women from competing in women’s sports.California has allowed trans girls to compete in girls’ sports for more than a decade – a policy that attracted little outcry until Republicans and anti-LGBTQ+ groups seized on the issue in recent years.The justice department under Trump has already filed a similar lawsuit against Maine and has made challenging transgender rights a major civil rights priority. The lawsuit alleges that state policies “ignore undeniable biological differences between boys and girls” and diminish the integrity of girls’ sports. Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights have said transgender athletes comprise a small minority of all school athletes and bans on their participation further stigmatize a vulnerable population.California’s policies drew national attention earlier this year when a transgender girl competing in the state track and field championship won the high jump and triple jump and finished second in the long jump, an episode cited in the justice department’s complaint. Ahead of that competition, the governing board for California high school sports had announced it would change the rules to allow more girls to take part.The athlete who won, 16-year-old AB Hernandez, was subjected to harassment from anti-LGBTQ+ activists and targeted by the president himself who said that her participation was “demeaning” to women and girls and said he was “ordering local authorities, if necessary, to not allow” her to participate.In an interview with the Guardian, Hernandez said that despite the criticism, she had the support of her classmates. “They see how hard I train,” she said. One of her competitors told the San Francisco Chronicle: “Sharing the podium was nothing but an honor.”The Trump administration lawsuit cites five alleged instances of transgender athletes taking part in girls’ school sporting events in a state with nearly 6 million public school students, according to state data.It seeks a court order barring any school under the California Interscholastic Federation from allowing transgender athletes to take part in girls’ sports competitions and to establish a process to compensate female athletes it alleges have been harmed by the state’s policy.Newsom has repeatedly clashed with Trump, most recently over the president’s decision to deploy national guard troops to Los Angeles, California’s largest city, to quell anti-deportation protests that erupted after the Trump administration carried out workplace raids in the city.The feud has prompted several legal battles between the Trump administration and the largest US state. The justice department under Trump has already launched an investigation into hiring practices at the University of California system and has sued Los Angeles over policies restricting the city’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.Newsom sued the Trump administration over the national guard deployment. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Emil Bove’s confirmation hearing was a travesty | Sidney Blumenthal

      by

      In The Godfather, a Mafia turncoat appears before a Senate committee in order to testify as a protected witness about its operations. Frank Pentangeli, “Frankie Five Angels”, a capo allied with the old godfather, Vito Corleone, has had a falling out with the new one, his son Michael Corleone, who attempted to assassinate him. As Pentangeli is about to speak at the hearing, he notices his brother Vincenzo, a mafioso from Sicily, seated behind him. Michael has arranged his grim looming presence. Pentangeli is suddenly reminded of his oath of omerta, the code of silence. He recants on the spot, saying that he just told the FBI “what they wanted to hear”.On 25 June, Emil Bove, Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, whom he had named associate deputy attorney general, and now after five months seeks to elevate as a federal judge on the US third circuit court of appeals, appeared before the Senate judiciary committee for his confirmation hearing. He faced, at least potentially, a far-ranging inquiry into his checkered career.There were charges of abusive behavior as an assistant US attorney. There was his role as enforcer of the alleged extortion of New York City Mayor Eric Adams to cooperate in the Trump administration’s migrant roundups in exchange for dropping the federal corruption case against him. There was Bove’s dismissal of FBI agents and prosecutors who investigated the January 6 insurrection. And there was more.On the eve of the hearing, the committee received a shocking letter from a whistleblower, a Department of Justice attorney, who claimed that Bove said, in response to a federal court ruling against the administration’s immigration deportation policy: “DoJ would need to consider telling the courts ‘fuck you’ and ignore any such order.”Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the committee chairperson, the ancient mariner of the right wing at 91 years old, gaveled the session to order by invoking new rules never before used with a nominee in a confirmation hearing. Instead of opening the questioning to examine the nominee’s past, he would thwart it. Grassley announced that Bove would be shielded by the “deliberative-process privilege and attorney-client privilege” from “an intense opposition campaign by my Democratic colleagues and by their media allies”. This was the unique imposition of a code of omerta.“My understanding is that Congress has never accepted the constitutional validity of either such privilege,” objected Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island. “This witness has no right to invoke that privilege,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut. But Grassley stonewalled.Prominently seated in the audience behind Bove were the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, and the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. Never before had such top officials been present at a confirmation hearing for a judicial nominee. The federal government through the justice department would inevitably appear in cases before his court. The attorney general and her deputy created an immediate perception of conflict of interest, an ethical travesty.But Bondi and Blanche were not there to silence Bove. They were there to intimidate the Republican senators. If there were any dissenters among them, they knew that they would suffer retribution. “Their being here is for one reason – to whip the Republicans into shape,” said Blumenthal. “To make sure that they toe the line. They are watching.”The rise of Emil Bove is the story of how a lawyer from the ranks associated himself with Donald Trump, proved his unswerving loyalty to become a made man, and has been richly rewarded with a nomination for a lifetime federal judgeship, presumably to continue his service. In his opening statement, Bove said: “I want to be clear about one thing up front: there is a wildly inaccurate caricature of me in the mainstream media. I’m not anybody’s henchman. I’m not an enforcer.”Bove began his career as a paralegal and then a prosecutor in the US attorney’s office for the southern district of New York. He was known for his attention to detail, relentlessness and sharp elbows. Seeking a promotion to supervisor, a group of defense attorneys including some who had been prosecutors in his office wrote a letter claiming he had “deployed questionable tactics, including threatening defendants with increasingly severe charges the lawyers believed he couldn’t prove”, according to Politico. Bove posted the letter in his office to display his contempt. He was denied the promotion, but eventually received it.As a supervisor, Bove was known as angry, belittling and difficult. He developed an abrasive relationship with FBI agents. After complaints, an executive committee in the US attorney’s office investigated and suggested he be demoted. He pleaded he would exercise more self-control and was allowed to remain in his post. “You are aware of this inquiry and their recommendation?” Senator Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, asked Bove about the incident. Bove replied: “As well as the fact that I was not removed.”In 2021, in the prosecution of an individual accused of evading sanctions on Iran, a team Bove supervised as the unit chief won a jury verdict. But then the US attorney’s office discovered the case was “marred by repeated failures to disclose exculpatory evidence and misuse of search-warrant returns” by the prosecutors handling the case, according to the judge. Declaring that “errors and ethical lapses in this case are pervasive”, she vacated the verdict and dismissed the charges as well as chastising those prosecutors for falling short of their “constitutional and ethical obligations” in “this unfortunate chapter” and criticizing Bove for providing sufficient supervision to prevent those failures.Bove became a private attorney, joining the law firm of Todd Blanche, whom Trump hired in 2023 to defend him in the New York case involving his payment of hush-money to the adult film actor Stormy Daniels. Blanche brought Bove along as his second chair. The qualities that made him a black sheep in the US attorney’s office recommended him to Blanche and his client. In Bove’s questioning of David Pecker, publisher of the National Enquirer, about his payments to women in his “catch-and-kill” scheme to protect Trump, Bove twice botched the presentation of evidence, was admonished by the judge and apologized. Trump was convicted of 34 felonies of financial fraud to subvert an election.Upon Trump’s election, he appointed Bove as acting deputy attorney general and then associate deputy once Todd Blanche was confirmed as deputy, reuniting the law partners, both Trump defense attorneys now resuming that role in an official capacity.On 31 January, Bove sent two memos, the first firing dozens of justice department prosecutors and the second firing FBI agents who had worked on the cases of January 6 insurrectionists, whom Trump pardoned on his inauguration day. Bove quoted Trump that their convictions were “a grave national injustice”. He also had his own history of conflict with fellow prosecutors and FBI agents.Asked about his actions by Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, Bove presented himself as even-handed. “I did and continue to condemn unlawful behavior, particularly violence against law enforcement,” he said. “At the same time, I condemn heavy-handed and unnecessary tactics by prosecutors and agents.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn February, Bove played a principal role in filing criminal charges claiming corruption in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The head of the criminal division at the US attorney’s office of the District of Columbia, Denise Cheung, believing there was no factual basis to the accusation, resigned with a statement praising those who are “following the facts and the law and complying with our moral, ethical and legal obligations”.When Whitehouse sought to ask Bove about the episode, Bove replied: “My answer is limited to: ‘I participated in the matter.’” Whitehouse turned to Grassley. “Do you see my point now?” he said. The code of omerta was working to frustrate questioning.Bove also deflected questions about his central role in the dropping of charges against Eric Adams. The acting US attorney for the southern district of New York, Danielle Sassoon, had resigned in protest, writing in a letter that Bove’s memo directing her to dismiss the charges had “nothing to do with the strength of the case”. She noted that in the meeting to fix “what amounted to a quid pro quo … Mr Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting’s conclusion.”Questioned about the Adams scandal, Bove denied any wrongdoing. Senator John A Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, played his helpmate. He asked Bove to “swear to your higher being” that there was no quid pro quo. “Absolutely not,” Bove said. “Do you swear on your higher being?” “On every bone in my body,” Bove replied. Hallelujah!Then Bove was asked about the letter sent by former justice department lawyer Erez Reuveni alleging that Bove planned the defiance of court rulings against the administration’s deportation policy. “I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” Bove said.Senator Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, repeatedly asked him if it was true he had said “fuck you” as his suggested plan of action against adverse court decisions. Bove hemmed and hawed, and finally said: “I don’t recall.” Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, remarked: “I am hoping more evidence is going to come out that shows that you lied before this committee.”Grassley, however, succeeded in protecting Bove. Bondi and Blanche stared down the Republican senators whose majority can put Bove on the bench. He is Trump’s model appointment of what he wants in a judge. In announcing his nomination, Trump tweeted: “Emil Bove will never let you down!”In another scene in The Godfather, Virgil “The Turk” Sollozzo, another Mafia boss, comes to Vito Corleone, offering a deal to cut him in on the narcotics trade. “I need, Don Corleone,” he says, “those judges that you carry in your pockets like so many nickels and dimes.” It was an offer that the Godfather refused. He left the drugs, but kept the judges.

      Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth. He is a Guardian US columnist and co-host of The Court of History podcast More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Pam Bondi denies knowing Ice agents wore masks during raids despite video evidence

      by

      The attorney general, Pam Bondi, professed ignorance of reports of immigration officials hiding their faces with masks during roundups of undocumented people, despite widespread video evidence and reports that they are instilling pervasive fear and panic.Challenged at a Wednesday Capitol Hill subcommittee hearing by Gary Peters, a Democratic senator for Michigan, Bondi, who as the country’s top law officer has a prominent role in the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policy, implied she was unaware of plain-clothed agents concealing their faces while carrying out arrests but suggested it was for self-protection.“I do know they are being doxxed … they’re being threatened,” she told Peters. “Their families are being threatened.”Bondi’s protestations appeared to strain credibility given the attention the masked raids carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents have attracted on social media and elsewhere.Civil rights campaigners and democracy experts have criticised the raids as evocative of entrenched dictatorships and police states, and say it is a warning sign that the US is descending into authoritarianism.Peters said he understood officers’ concerns at being doxxed but said the failure to wear identifying insignia endangered both themselves and detainees.“The public risk being harmed by individuals pretending to be immigration enforcement, which has already happened,” he told Bondi. “And these officers also risk being injured by individuals who think they’re basically being kidnapped or attacked by some unknown assailant.“People think: ‘Here’s a person coming up to me, not identified, covering themselves. They’re kidnapping.’ They’ll probably fight back. That endangers the officer as well, and that’s a serious situation. People need to know that they’re dealing with a federal law enforcement official.”Bondi reiterated her proclamation of ignorance, saying: “It sounds like you have a specific case and will be happy to talk to you about that at a later time, because I’m not aware of that happening.”She turned the tables later in the hearing after Bill Hagerty, a Republican from Tennessee, condemned Tim Walz, the Minnesota governor and the Democratic vice presidential candidate in last year’s election, for comparing Ice agents with Nazi Gestapo officers.“This is dangerous for our agents, it’s wrong, and it cuts against and it undercuts the rule of law,” said Hagerty, who invited Bondi to explain how she intended to tackle “leftwing radicals” who he said were attacking Ice agents.In response, the attorney general said that it was protesters who were concealing their identities when assailing officers.“Those people are the ones who have really been wearing the mask and trying to cover their identities,” she said, citing the recent demonstrations in Los Angeles, against which Donald Trump deployed national guard units. “We’ve been finding them. We have been charging them with assault on a federal officer.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLisa Murkowski, a Republican senator from Alaska who has some voiced criticism of the Trump administration, told Bondi that her constituents were worried that resources had been transferred to immigration crackdowns at the expense of tackling violent crime.“We don’t have much of an Ice presence in Alaska,” she said. “All of a sudden, we’re now on the map. We have those that are being detained in our local jail that were flown up to the state several weeks ago to be detained up there.”She also cited the case of a restaurant owner who had been detained by Ice agents after living in the Alaskan city of Soldotna for 20 years. “His children are all integrated into the community,” Murkowski said.“The specific ask is whether or not immigration enforcement is being prioritized over combatting violent crime. And senator, before you walked in, I think senators on both sides of the aisle shared that same concern.”Bondi replied: “It is not and it will not. A lot of it does go hand in hand though, getting the illegal aliens who are violent criminals out of our country.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US federal judges consider creating own armed security force as threats mount

      by

      Federal judges are discussing a proposal that would shift the armed security personnel responsible for their safety away from the Department of Justice (DoJ) and under their own control, as fears mount that the Trump administration is failing to protect them from a rising tide of hostility.The Wall Street Journal revealed on Sunday that the idea of creating their own armed security detail emerged at a meeting of about 50 federal judges two months ago. A security committee at the twice-yearly judicial conference, a policymaking body for federal judges, raised concerns about the increasing number of threats against judges following Trump’s relentless criticism of court rulings against his policies.Under the current system, federal judges are protected by the US marshals service, which is managed by the justice department. According to Wall Street Journal, those participating at the March conference expressed worries that Trump might instruct the marshals to withdraw security protection from a judge who ruled against him.Amid those anxieties, the idea surfaced that federal judges should form their own armed security force. That would involve bringing the US marshals service under the direct control of the head of the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts.At present, marshals fall under the remit of Pam Bondi, the US attorney general. Bondi was appointed by the president and is a Trump loyalist.She has made clear she will be guided by him – breaking a decades-long norm that kept the White House at arm’s length from the DoJ to ensure law enforcement and prosecutorial independence.John Coughenour, a federal judge in the western district of Washington, told the Journal that he thought the transfer of the marshals out of Trump’s and into judicial control was a “wonderful idea”. He added: “There’s never been any reason in the 43 years that I’ve been on the bench to worry that the marshals service would do whatever was appropriate – until recent years.”Coughenour is one of a growing number of judges who have faced security threats in the wake of Trump’s deluge of invective. In February the judge issued an order blocking Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born on US soil to parents lacking legal status in the country.The judge was then targeted by a swatting attack, where a fake alarm is called into police and a Swat team sent out to the individual’s home.Senior Democrats have demanded an investigation into a spate of dozens of pizza deliveries to the homes of federal judges. The actions are seen as intimidatory, as it shows judges that their private addresses are known.Federal judges have found themselves on the front lines of constitutional battles over Trump’s executive orders over such contentious issues as birthright citizenship, the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, and the dismissal of tens of thousands of federal employees. So far there have been 249 legal challenges to Trump administration actions, according to a Just Security tracker.Trump has used his social media platform Truth Social to lash out at named judges who have blocked his policies on grounds that they violate the US constitution or law. When Judge James Boasberg objected to the deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador in the absence of due process, the president called him a “radical left lunatic” and said he should be impeached. Boasberg was first appointed to the federal bench by Republican George W Bush.The White House provided the Journal with a statement from the justice department. It said that marshals would “continue to protect the safety and security of federal judges” and that any other suggestion was “absurd”. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Pam Bondi turning DoJ into Trump’s ‘personal law firm’, top experts warn

      by

      Donald Trump’s Department of Justice has taken radical steps to target his political foes, back a harsh agenda against undocumented immigrants and help business allies – steps which underscore its politicization under the attorney general Pam Bondi and undermine the rule of law, say ex-prosecutors and legal experts.Some even say that the department has in effect become Trump’s “personal law firm”.Since taking office a second time, Trump has relied on staunch loyalist Bondi and an elite group of justice department lawyers to investigate critics from his first administration plus political opponents and curb prosecutions of US business bribery overseas.Ex-prosecutors point to how Bondi and the department’s top lawyers have halted some major prosecutions, fired or forced out lawyers who didn’t meet Maga litmus tests, and were instructed by Trump to investigate a key Democratic fundraising vehicle as examples of how Trump and Bondi have politicized the justice department.Critics note that once Bondi became attorney general, she issued a memo establishing a “weaponization working group”, which pushed a false narrative that investigations by a special counsel into Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election and his improperly retaining classified documents were politically motivated.The transformation of the Department of Justice under Bondi has put a premium for staff on “personal loyalty” to Trump, say ex-prosecutors, which has damaged the rule of law and provoked multiple rebukes from courts and the resignations or firings of veteran prosecutors.“The steps Trump and Bondi have taken using DoJ to punish enemies and reward allies while firing those who object radically transforms and politicizes DoJ in a way that not even the worst who have gone before them ever contemplated,” the former federal prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig said.“Trump’s transmuting DoJ into his personal law firm is, in effect, a rejection of the founding principle of the rule of law.”Other ex-prosecutors see the department marching in dangerous legal lockstep with Trump’s agenda and damaging its mission to protect the rule of law.“Bondi and DoJ lawyers have certainly tried to make personal loyalty to Trump the justice department’s guiding principle,” said the Columbia law professor and ex-federal prosecutor Daniel Richman.Critics note Bondi has also echoed Trump’s dangerous rhetorical blasts against judges who have ruled against his administration’s sweeping and haphazard drive to deport undocumented immigrants by labeling them “low-level leftist judges who are trying to dictate President Trump’s executive powers”.After the FBI arrested a Milwaukee judge for allegedly obstructing the arrest of an undocumented immigrant, Bondi went on Fox News to threaten other judges who may defy their agenda. “They’re deranged. I think some of these judges think they are beyond and above the law, and they are not. We will come after you and we will prosecute you,” she said.Hundreds of lawyers and staff in the justice department’s civil rights division are now leaving the storied unit as its focus has shifted to Trump priorities such as pursuing cases against elite universities and student protesters, while curbing some civil and voting rights cases it has traditionally pursued, say critics.Other actions by the department under Bondi, an ex-Florida attorney general who later worked on Trump’s legal team during his first impeachment trial in 2020, and some elite justice department lawyers reflect its strong allegiance to Trump and have sparked strong criticism.They include an investigation of two officials, Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor, who served in his first term and clashed with him for, respectively, not backing his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen and for voicing strong concerns in a 2018 New York Times op ed about how Trump threatened democracy.In another radical move, Trump issued an executive order in April telling the justice department to investigate unverified allegations that ActBlue, a major Democratic online fundraising vehicle, had engaged in improper fundraising schemes.Trump also reportedly prodded the Department of Justice to drop a five-count criminal fraud prosecution of the New York mayor, Eric Adams, that the elite justice department southern district had worked on for months, as Trump was eager to secure public support from Adams for his immigration agenda in the city.Some actions also appear aimed at helping allied business interests. In April, the justice department abruptly closed a cryptocurrency unit that was launched in 2022 and had successfully prosecuted dangerous criminal schemes involving North Korean hackers and other fraudsters, but which had come under fire from cryptocurrency leaders who helped fund Trump’s campaign last year.Trump’s justice department also has paused for six months prosecuting businesses that have been charged with violating the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which bars paying bribes to win deals abroad.Other moves seem to reflect Trump’s enmity towards journalists who report critically about his administration. In a reversal of recent department policy, Bondi revoked journalists’ free-speech protections by greenlighting authorities to force journalists to reveal confidential sources in leak investigations. Meanwhile, Bondi also seems willing to protect political allies, such as when she declined to open an investigation into “Signalgate” despite extensive documentation that top national security officials had improperly shared classified information as an attack was imminent in Yemen against the Houthis.Ex-prosecutors say that Bondi and the justice department’s willingness to make personal loyalty to Trump paramount damages the rule of law.Critics note the justice department has been rebuked by federal courts for stonewalling court orders and questions about some of its deportation actions and for not bringing home a Maryland man originally from El Salvador who was sent to a notorious Salvadorian prison as a result of what Ice has called an “administrative error”.“Never in history has DoJ broken so defiantly from respecting, as it’s obligated to do, the decisions of federal courts,” said the former prosecutor Ty Cobb, who was a counsel in the White House during Trump’s first term. “This is a war that Trump and Bondi are waging against the rule of law.”Richman noted more broadly that “outside the immigration area, most of what Bondi has actually done so far, however, has been negative – like dropping the case against Mayor Adams and cases against FCPA defendants and firing prosecutors”.Richman added: “We will soon see how this administration fares when it actually seeks a result in court, even if it’s only defensive. As the proceedings in the recent Maryland deportation case highlighted, courts demand a candor and respect for law that the justice department’s leadership finds inconsistent with the loyalty it demands.”Some veteran prosecutors who quit the department after Trump and Bondi took office say that the pair’s first moves raised red flags that prompted their departures.“Bondi has made clear – before becoming attorney general, and since – that she wants the Department of Justice to support President Trump unconditionally,” said Mike Romano, who resigned from the department in late March.Before he quit, Romano spent almost four years working on the prosecutions of Trump allies who stormed Congress on 6 January 2021 in an effort to thwart Joe Biden’s certification by Congress.Romano said that the night Bondi was confirmed “she issued a memorandum to all justice department employees in which she threatened to fire employees who refuse to defend the Trump administration’s actions, advance its arguments or sign its briefs. She and her subordinates have made good on those threats by firing people and forcing them to resign.”Romano stressed that “some of my colleagues were fired, and others were demoted, because they prosecuted people who rioted at the Capitol. At the public integrity section, four of my managers resigned, in lieu of being fired, when they refused to sign a motion to dismiss the case against Mayor Adams. These actions send a clear message to people still at the department: if you want to keep your job, disagreement won’t be tolerated.”Similarly, Barbara McQuade, a former prosecutor for Michigan’s eastern district who now teaches law at the University of Michigan, warned that Bondi’s memo setting up a “weaponization working group” actually “weaponizes law enforcement and undermines public confidence in government” because it pushes a “false narrative” about the two investigations of Trump by the former special counsel Jack Smith.McQuade emphasized that “in fact federal grand juries returned indictments in both cases, meaning that they found probable cause that the crimes were committed. DoJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution prohibit prosecutors from making charging decisions on the basis of partisan politics.”Pointing to a further symbol of the justice department’s politicization under Bondi, McQuade cited her statement that a federal judge “supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans” and charged he “cannot be objective” because he issued a temporary restraining order blocking deportation of Venezuelan men to El Salvador without due process.“There is no evidence to suggest that the judge did anything other than apply the law to the case,” McQuade stressed. “He was applying the law to a highly suspect use of the Alien Enemies Act, a statute to be used during wartime.”Assessing Trump’s politicization of the Department of Justice, Rosenzweig said the department was betraying its historic mission to protect the rule of law.“DoJ isn’t just another department like agriculture or HHS. It has a unique place in the US government as the home of the ‘rule of law’ and the guardian of what makes America special,” he said.“Thomas Paine said: ‘In America, the law is king.’ Trump wants to make his word the law and himself the king.” More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Pam Bondi rescinds Biden-era protections for journalists

      by

      Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, has revoked a Biden administration-era policy that restricted subpoenas of reporters’ phone records in criminal investigations.An internal memo, first reported by ABC News, shows Bondi rescinding protections issued by her predecessor, Merrick Garland, for members of the media from having their records seized or being forced to testify in the course of leak investigations.The memo says federal employees who leak sensitive information to the media “for the purposes of personal enrichment and undermining our foreign policy, national security, and government effectiveness” are engaging in conduct that could be characterized as “treasonous”.“This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop,” the memo states. The justice department “will not tolerate disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people”.Bondi’s memo states that she has concluded that “it is necessary to rescind Merrick Garland’s policies precluding the Department of Justice from seeking records and compelling testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks”.But, she said, the department would continue to employ procedural protections to “limit the use of compulsory legal process” to obtain journalists’ records, acknowledging that a “free and independent press is vital to the functioning of our democracy”.Under the new policy, Bondi wrote, the attorney general “must also approve efforts to question or arrest members of the news media”.The move comes after Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said she had made multiple criminal referrals to the justice department related to alleged leaks in the intelligence community.One of the leaks included information leaked to the Washington Post, Gabbard told Fox News on Wednesday. She went on to describe the leakers as “deep-state criminals” with “partisan political purposes to undermine President Trump’s agenda”.In 2022, Garland issued regulations to restrict how federal prosecutors could pursue leak investigations, following revelations that justice department officials under the previous Trump administration had secretly obtained the phone records of reporters at the Washington Post, CNN and the New York Times.Bondi’s memo comes as Donald Trump, who has frequently branded journalists “the enemy of the people”, has escalated his attacks on the US media landscape since returning to the White House in January.The new Trump administration’s war on the press has included seizing control of the White House press pool from news organisations, engaging in a highly publicized dispute with the Associated Press over the wire agency’s decision not to adopt the name Gulf of America instead of Gulf of Mexico into its stylebook, and moving to dismantle Voice of America (VoA).The justice department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump can’t withhold funds from sanctuary cities, says federal judge

      by

      The Trump administration cannot deny federal funds to cities and counties that have passed laws preventing or limiting cooperation with US immigration officials, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.The US district judge William Orrick issued a temporary injunction sought by San Francisco, Santa Clara county and and more than a dozen other municipalities with “sanctuary” policies, and declared that portions of Donald Trump’s executive orders were unconstitutional.“The cities and counties have also demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm,” Orrick wrote in his order. “The threat to withhold funding causes them irreparable injury in the form of budgetary uncertainty, deprivation of constitutional rights, and undermining trust between the cities and counties and the communities they serve.”On his first day in office, the US president issued an order directing the attorney general and homeland security secretary to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions as part of his administration’s crackdown on immigration. In another order, he directed the federal government to ensure funds to state and local governments don’t “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation”.Meanwhile, on Thursday the US transportation department threatened states with the loss of federal funding if they do not comply with US immigration enforcement efforts.Under the judge’s order, the federal government is prohibited “from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds”. The Trump administration must provide written notice of his order to all federal departments and agencies by Monday.The plaintiffs have argued the orders amounted to overreach and that the Trump administration was attempting to force cities to participate in its “reckless and illegal mass deportation efforts”.“The federal administration is illegally asserting power it does not have, as courts already determined during the first Trump Administration,” David Chiu, the San Francisco city attorney, said in a statement.“They want to commandeer local police officers as federal Ice agents, while strong-arming local officials with threats of withholding federal funds that support our police department, our efforts to address homelessness, and our public health system.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe federal government has not yet attempted to withhold specific amounts or lay out conditions on specific grants, and during a hearing on Wednesday attorneys for the justice department argued it was too soon for the judge to issue an injunction for that reason.Orrick, who was nominated by Barack Obama, said government lawyers made the same argument during Trump’s first term when the Republican issued a similar order.“Their well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in 2017,” Orrick wrote. He pointed to the executive orders and directives from Pam Bondi, other federal agencies and justice department lawsuits filed against Chicago and New York.San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump order and the ninth US circuit court of appeals agreed with the lower court that Trump exceeded his authority when he signed an executive order threatening to cut funding for “sanctuary cities”.The cities and counties who sued to stop the administration’s most recent orders praised the judge’s decision.“At a time when we continue to see tremendous federal overreach, the court’s ruling affirms that local governments can serve their mission and maintain trust with the communities they care for,” said Tony LoPresti, counsel for Santa Clara county, in a statement.Associated Press contributed to this report More

    • 238 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Like a slap in the face’: Trump officials cut hundreds of millions to combat gun violence and opioid addiction

      by

      Hundreds of millions of federal grant dollars meant to prevent and respond to gun violence, opioid addiction and support victims of violent crimes were cut this week by the Trump administration. The US department of justice emailed more than 350 organizations on Tuesday to tell them that the promised funding was being terminated. According to a termination notice shared with the Guardian, the Department of Justice said the money was rescinded because it “no longer effectuates Department priorities”.Instead, the department intends to focus on “more directly supporting certain law enforcement operations, combatting violent crime, protecting American children, and supporting American victims of trafficking and sexual assault, and better coordinating law enforcement efforts at all levels of government”, the notice read.“It was a bit like a slap in the face,” said Renée Williams, CEO of the National Center for Victims of Crime, which lost three grants, including one for a victim’s hotline, that the justice department had been funding for 10 years. The hotline shut down this Friday.“We serve 16,000 people a year and there are other hotlines being shut down. When you see how many victims will be shut out from services, it’s terrifying.”The funding had come through the Office of justice programs (OJP), the justice department’s grant-making apparatus. Many of the grants were cut off in the middle of their funding cycles, throwing staffing and the survival of vital programs into jeopardy. The legality of these funding cuts is unclear and organizations across the country said they will be filing appeals and lawsuits to get the promised funds back.A spokesperson for the justice department said that the office would be focused on “prosecuting criminals, getting illegal drugs off of the streets, and protecting American institutions from toxic DEI and sanctuary city policies. Discretionary funds that are no longer aligned with the administration’s priorities are subject to review and reallocation”.The full tally of the rescinded funds is unclear, but the cuts come at a critical moment for community-based violence prevention, a field whose funding was super-charged during the Biden administration through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and whose work has been credited with the recent drop in homicides throughout the US.“We got that letter and couldn’t believe it at first. It’s frustrating, it’s disorienting and we know that this is a strategy that’s meant to keep us off balance,” said Joseph Griffin, executive director of Youth Alive, a more than 30-year-old Oakland-based violence prevention and intervention program.Youth Alive was more than one year into a three-year $2m grant from the justice department’s community based violence intervention and prevention initiative (CVIPI), which was formed in 2022 to support groups working in rural and urban communities struggling to address violence.Youth Alive, which also gets financial support from philanthropic donors, was planning to use the $2m to find ways that the healthcare agencies can support victims of violence, and evaluate its hospital-based violence intervention program, which dispatches staff to the bedsides of people who’ve been shot, as well as its broader violence interruption strategy. The loss of federal support follows a decrease in homicides in Oakland in 2024.“What does violence prevention work look like without the federal government? These cuts are forcing us to come to terms with that,” Griffin said, noting that the cuts come just before summer, a season when gun violence tends to tick up. “How do we not get knocked off of our footing and figure out how to keep showing up in our community?”Since the creation of the CVIPI, more than $300m has been dispersed to groups such as Youth Alive that are led by people who live in areas with high concentrations of shootings, according to a former Biden administration official. Although it represents a small portion of the more than $4bn in grants the justice departmentawards annually, lawmakers and police partly attribute these programs this funding supports with the reduction in homicides in cities across the US.“There’s a seismic shift happening that’s going to result in [violence prevention workers] being unemployed and more people being shot and hurt,” said Adam Rosenberg, executive director of Center for hope, a Baltimore-based group that provides prevention and healing services for children who’ve been the witnesses or victims of gun violence.The group lost $1.2m of a $2m grant that will impact at least seven staff members who worked directly with people impacted by violence. The grant money was intended to train staff and prevent shootings that begin on social media and spill onto the streets.Center for Hope also runs six of the city’s 10 Safe Street sites, which operate in the pockets of Baltimore that see the most shootings. Between 2023 and 2024, four of the sites run by center for hope saw zero homicides, according to Rosenberg. In that same timeframe, the number of homicides in the city decreased by 34% between 2023 and 2024, mayor Brandon Scott said in a post on X on 3 February.“The biggest result of this: Victims not having resources,” Rosenberg said. “At its most catastrophic, we increase the risk of people dying, which is hard, especially when we turned the tide. We were winning.”The Department of Justice did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment. More