Trump administration

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares18 Views

    Trump appointees interfered to weaken EPA assessment of toxic chemical

    by

    Trump administration appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) meddled in agency science to weaken the toxicity assessment of a dangerous chemical, a new report by the US body’s internal watchdog has found.In response to what it labeled “political interference”, the Biden administration in February 2021 pulled the assessment, republished it months later using what it said is sound science, and declared it had resolved the issue.But EPA scientists who spoke to the Guardian say several employees willingly worked with the Trump appointees to weaken the assessment, and they were never reprimanded or fired.The scientists say the controversy is part of a deeper problem afflicting the EPA: industry influence on career staff, and an unwillingness from the EPA to address it.“The issue is part of the larger rot at the agency of career staff working with industry to weaken the EPA,” a current agency scientist familiar with the situation said. The scientist did not use their name for fear of reprisal.The controversy centered around a 2021 toxicity report for PFBS, a type of PFAS compound that is toxic at low levels. Research has linked the chemical to kidney disease, reproductive problems and thyroid damage, and it has been found throughout the environment, including in an estimated 860,000 Americans’ drinking water.PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” due to their longevity in the environment, and are a growing health hazard.In its recent report, the EPA’s office of inspector general described “unprecedented” interference by former Trump-appointed EPA chief Andrew Wheeler and other political appointees, who ordered the alteration of the PFBS toxicity value just as the assessment was about to be published in late 2020. The revised assessment went live just four days before Trump left office in 2021.The assessment would have been used by regulators to establish drinking-water quality standards and other environmental cleanup targets that companies must meet when addressing pollution. Instead of a specific target number, Wheeler ordered a range of toxicity values for PFBS, which meant companies required to clean up pollution could choose to leave higher levels of the chemical in the environment.That could have led to a “less costly, but possibly insufficient” cleanup, the inspector general wrote in its report, and the change’s critics say it put human health at risk. It is unlikely the revised assessment was used in the few weeks that it was publicly available, the inspector general wrote.The changes were “something that industry has always wanted”, former EPA scientist Betsy Southerland previously told the Guardian.The disagreement about the toxicity value centered around the uncertainty factor used in PFBS’s assessment, which was developed by career scientists in the EPA’s office of research and development (ORD). Uncertainty factors are designed to fill in gaps in data on chemicals’ effects on the human body. In PFBS’s case, studies on how the compound affects thyroid hormone levels and neural development were not available. The uncertainty factors would help account for those gaps.The inspector general noted the ORD’s development of the assessment was twice peer-reviewed, followed EPA review protocol, and the office of chemical safety and pollution prevention (OCSPP) had twice reviewed and signed off on the assessment.“There was a lot of rigor, a lot of involvement across the agency,” said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, then an ORD science adviser.Still, at political appointees’ behest, the OCSPP alternative uncertainty factors were inserted just days before the assessment was published. The new numbers were inserted without being fully scientifically vetted, and they lacked “technical and quality assurance review”, the inspector general wrote.The range of toxicity values was framed by political appointees as a “compromise” to resolve the alleged dispute between the OCSPP and the ORD, the inspector general said. The appointees also defended it as a “policy” decision, not an alteration of scientific data.After the Biden EPA pulled the assessment, it issued a statement declaring the process was “compromised by political interference as well as infringement of authorship”.During its review, the administration took no action against career employees who implemented the political appointees’ changes. Those employees “made the changes happily”, according to Kyla Bennett of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer), but remained at the agency.An internal email thread from the Trump EPA’s waning days and comments in the inspector general report illuminate how career employees in the OCSPP either requested the changes or did not object to alterations.Among the career employees were Ana Lowit, Todd Stedeford and Tala Henry. Henry and Stedeford were previously accused by whistleblowers of altering scientific documents at industry’s behest to make other chemicals appear less toxic.Stedeford said he “adamantly opposed” the PFBS changes, and denied wrongdoing in previous allegations made against him by whistleblowers.The thread opened on 7 January 2021 with an email from Henry, then a deputy director in the OCSPP, sent to political appointees and career employees within the ORD and the OCSPP. She told the group the alterations are “something [Wheeler] has requested”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe only career EPA employee to oppose the order to change the assessment was Orme-Zavaleta, who in a response from the same day noted the assessment had already been reviewed twice and was considered “final”. Further changes would delay it for months because it would need to go through the review process, she told the group.In response to Orme-Zavaleta’s emails, a Trump political appointee said the assessment needed to be published in the next week because Wheeler had a media interview on PFAS and wanted to be able to “highlight” the assessment.“They were trying so hard to get it out before Trump left office,” Bennett said.On 8 January, a Trump appointee said Wheeler had allowed the review process to be “expedited”, and the altered assessment would be published before Biden took over the EPA.“Great news!” the appointee wrote.Wheeler’s decision “flew in the face of scientific integrity”, Orme-Zavaleta told the Guardian.The inspector general report suggests OCSPP career employees such as Stedeford, Henry and Lowit did not object to the changes: “We found no evidence that intimidation or coercion took place.”However, the three career staffers were in an “awkward position”, Orme-Zavelta said.“Career staff report to political leadership, and they were directed to make these changes,” she said. “It was a very tough position for them to say no, because that would have been insubordination.”Bennett said the employees should have pushed back: “Having been a whistleblower at the EPA myself, I understand it is not a fun place to be, but it’s better than just shrugging your shoulders and making the changes. They could have, and should have, fought back.”Lowit now works as a science adviser in the OCSPP and did not respond to a request for comment.Stedeford has since left the EPA to work for a law firm that represents chemical manufacturers.Henry retired amid the inspector general investigation late last year.Orme-Zavaleta said the controversy was “demoralizing” for ORD scientists, and some remain “bitter”.The inspector general report failed to address how to protect employees from political leadership pressure, she added. And with the EPA deeming the incident “political interference” instead of a larger problem, employees who spoke with the Guardian fear more of the same.“People know what happened, and they know there were no consequences, so there’s no deterrent,” said an employee familiar with the situation. “It’s only going to make people more brazen about doing this kind of thing in the future.” More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares55 Views

      in US Politics

      Stormy Daniels: Donald Trump legal team ‘pushes for end to hush money case’

      by

      Donald Trump’s legal team recently urged the Manhattan district attorney’s office not to indict the former president over his role in paying hush money to a porn star, arguing that the payments would have been made irrespective of his 2016 presidential candidacy, sources familiar with the matter have said.The lawyer who represented the Trump team at the meeting with the district attorney’s office, Susan Necheles, also argued that campaign funds had not been used for the payments to the porn star, known as Stormy Daniels, and were therefore not a violation of campaign finance laws.The arguments presented to the district attorney’s office mark the most formal defense that the Trump team have raised to date, as they attempt to settle on a strategy to avoid conviction in the event that the former president is charged with a misdemeanour or felony over the payments.Trump may face an uphill struggle with those arguments, given the fact that having “mixed motives” to protect himself personally and to protect his campaign could leave him liable, and the timing of the payments suggests there was an urgency to pay the money before the end of the 2016 campaign.The effort to convince the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, not to bring charges may also prove futile amid increasing signals that an indictment is likely.On Wednesday, Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen testified for around two hours before the grand jury and told the Guardian that he provided the most complete account of the hush money scheme. He added that every juror asked a question, which suggested a particularly engaged grand jury.That is a typical sign for prosecutors as they weigh potential charges, legal experts say, because it could indicate the grand jury found him to be a compelling witness – and a jury at an eventual trial might be similarly convinced.Cohen is the crucial witness because he made the $130,000 payment to Daniels in late October 2016, buying her silence about the story of an affair with Trump. Trump later reimbursed him as president, through monthly $35,000 checks from his personal checking account, and Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges involving the hush money.The district attorney’s case is likely to focus on how Trump and the Trump Organization handled the reimbursements. According to court filings in the federal case, the Trump Organization falsely recorded the payments as legal expenses, referencing a legal retainer with Cohen that did not exist.Falsifying business records can be a misdemeanour in New York. But it can rise to a felony if prosecutors can show beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s “intent to defraud” included an effort to commit or conceal a second crime.What is unclear in this investigation is the potential second crime, though Bragg could tie the falsification to a violation of state election law, arguing the payment to Daniels was an illicit contribution to the Trump campaign, given the money stifled Daniels and helped his campaign.Also on Wednesday, Daniels herself met with the district attorney’s office at their request, her lawyer said in a tweet. Daniels responded to questions, he said, “and has agreed to make herself available as a witness, or for further inquiry if needed”.The district attorney’s office has questioned at least seven other people before the grand jury and Cohen was expected to be one of the final witnesses to make an appearance. Trump was also recently invited to testify, but his legal team is understood to have declined the offer.The recent moves by the district attorney suggest criminal charges against Trump could be imminent. It would be rare for a prosecutor to question essentially every relevant witness in a high-profile white-collar criminal case and ultimately decline to seek an indictment. More

    • 150 Shares74 Views

      in US Politics

      John Bolton chose not to brief Trump on Russia Havana syndrome suspicion

      by

      John Bolton chose not to brief Trump on Russia Havana syndrome suspicionFormer national security adviser tells podcast ‘we didn’t feel we would get support’ from president during Russia investigationDonald Trump’s third national security adviser, John Bolton, did not brief the president on suspicions Russia might be behind mysterious “Havana syndrome” attacks on US diplomats because he did not think Trump would support him.‘Havana syndrome’ not caused by foreign adversary, US intelligence saysRead more“Since our concern was that one of the perpetrators – maybe the perpetrator – was Russia,” Bolton said, “we didn’t feel we would get support from President Trump if we said, ‘We think the Russians are coming after American personnel.’”Bolton makes the startling admission in an interview for an episode of a podcast, The Sound: Mystery of Havana Syndrome, hosted by the former Guardian journalist Nicky Woolf and released on Monday.Bolton was national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019, a period of intense scrutiny on Trump’s relations with Russia, primarily via special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow.Mueller issued his report in April 2019. He did not prove collusion between Trump and Moscow in his 2016 election victory over Hillary Clinton but the former FBI director did secure indictments of figures close to Trump and lay out extensive evidence of possible obstruction of justice.Trump angrily rejected allegations of wrongdoing and claimed to be the victim of a witch-hunt. But he also closely courted Vladimir Putin, even seeming, in Helsinki in July 2018, to side with the Russian president against his own intelligence agencies.“Havana syndrome” refers to the investigation of more than 1,000 “anomalous health incidents” involving diplomats, spies and other US government employees around the world. The first cases emerged in 2016.Symptoms have included brain injuries, hearing loss, vertigo and unusual auditory sensations. Speculation about directed energy weapons has persisted, though earlier this month an official report said “available intelligence consistently points against the involvement of US adversaries in causing the reported incidents”.Havana syndrome got its name because, as Bolton told The Sound, “the first reports came from Cuba [so] it would not be unreasonable to say the Cubans were doing it”.But, he said, “it becomes counterintuitive pretty quickly. If they wanted to keep the American embassy open, you wouldn’t attack it. That tended to show that it was some other government. And a government with more capabilities than we thought the Cubans had.”The Trump administration cracked down on Cuba anyway, returning it to the “state sponsor of terror” list, ending a diplomatic thaw begun by Barack Obama. Bolton, a famous rightwing foreign policy hawk, told The Sound he favoured taking that step anyway, regardless of the origin of the Havana syndrome attacks.He also said he and other national security staffers “felt that because it was possible – not certain, but possible – this emanated from a hostile foreign power and we had our ideas who that might be … we thought more needed to be done to consider that possibility and either find evidence to rule it in or rule it out”.If the attack theory was real, Bolton said, there was “no shortage of evidence that would point to Russia as … at least the top suspect”.Nonetheless, he said, he decided not to take that suspicion to Trump.“Who knows what he would’ve said,” Bolton said of his decision not to brief Trump on his suspicions about Russia and Havana syndrome.“He might’ve said, ‘Do nothing at all.’ I didn’t want to chance that, because I did feel it was serious.”Trump fired Bolton in September 2019. The following year, Bolton released a book, The Room Where It Happened, in which he was highly critical of his former boss. Trump sought to prevent publication. Bolton has said he could run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 if it is a way to stop Trump, who he has called “poison” to the Republican party.Speaking to The Sound, Bolton suggested the decision not to brief Trump about suspicions about Russia damaged attempts to investigate the Havana syndrome mystery.“When you don’t have the ability to bring the hammer down and say, ‘Find the answer out,’ … it’s much easier for the bureaucracy to resist.”TopicsDonald TrumpJohn BoltonTrump administrationTrump-Russia investigationUS politicsUS national securityUS foreign policynewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Pence: history will hold Donald Trump accountable over Capitol attack

      by

      Mike Pence: history will hold Donald Trump accountable over Capitol attackFormer vice-president, speaking at Gridiron dinner, says it ‘mocks decency’ to portray January 6 as anything other than a ‘disgrace’Mike Pence has offered a rebuke of his one-time boss Donald Trump, saying history will hold the former president accountable for his role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.Judge who told Pence not to overturn election predicts ‘beginning of end of Trump’Read morePence, then vice-president, was in the Capitol when thousands of Trump supporters breached the building in an attempt to stop Congress certifying the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden.As Senate president, Pence presided over the ceremonial task of approving the votes of the electoral college.Throughout the siege, Trump sent several tweets, one calling on Republicans to “fight” and others making false claims of voter fraud. He also criticised Pence for certifying the results.Some rioters chanted “Hang Mike Pence”. A makeshift gallows was erected outside. Pence was spirited to safety by Secret Service agents.On Saturday at the Gridiron dinner in Washington, Pence told journalists and their guests: “President Trump was wrong. I had no right to overturn the election, and his reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day, and I know that history will hold Donald Trump accountable.”Pence is now considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 – against Trump, the clear leader in polling.Pence rarely addressed January 6 in the months after the riot but he has now upped his criticism of the rioters and Trump. In a memoir released in November he accused Trump of endangering his family.“What happened that day was a disgrace,” Pence told the Gridiron audience. “And it mocks decency to portray it any other way. For as long as I live, I will never, ever diminish the injuries sustained, the lives lost, or the heroism of law enforcement on that tragic day.”A Trump spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Pence’s remarks came a few days after the Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired highly selective, misleading security footage of the Capitol attack, in an attempt to claim many rioters were “orderly”.Carlson’s depiction was sharply criticised by Democrats and Senate Republicans. Many other Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives, shrugged off the episode.On Sunday, a relatively moderate House Republican was asked if Pence was right to say history would hold Trump accountable for January 6. Nancy Mace, from South Carolina, sidestepped the question.“I see this in two parts,” she told CNN’s State of the Union. “I think both sides are really struggling, looking at the nomination process. You’ve got some on the left that don’t want Biden to run, you’ve got those on the right that don’t want [Trump] to run.“You know, a lot of folks on both sides keep bringing up January 6, and it’s keeping us from moving our country forward.”Mace was not among the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump over the Capitol attack, making Trump’s second impeachment the most bipartisan in US history.Nonetheless, she also saluted her own success in defeating a challenger endorsed by Trump last year, and said Republicans should unite behind a candidate “who can win the White House”.Asked again if Trump would be held accountable, Mace said: “He is one of the only candidates in right now … we have a long way to go for additional candidates to jump in and see how the field lays out.”Asked if the Republican House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, was right to have released more than 40,000 hours of Capitol security footage to Carlson – a decision for which McCarthy has faced fierce criticism – Mace said: “I said early on … it was important that it should be released to every outlet including CNN, every media outlet, every defense attorney so that the public can see for itself.“There was violence on that day. You cannot deny that and you know, it was a dark day in our history. But so was the summer of 2020.”Mace proceeded to compare the deadly attack on Congress – now linked to nine deaths, more than a thousand arrests and hundreds of convictions including some for seditious conspiracy – to protests for racial justice after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020.“We saw very few arrests when there were attacks by … members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. I had my house spray painted two summers ago and no one’s been held to account for that.”
      Reuters contributed reporting
      TopicsUS Capitol attackMike PenceDonald TrumpUS politicsRepublicansTrump administrationUS elections 2024newsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump was issued subpoena for folder marked ‘Classified Evening Briefing’ discovered at Mar-a-Lago

      by

      Trump was issued subpoena for folder marked ‘Classified Evening Briefing’ discovered at Mar-a-LagoExclusive: Subpoena was issued last month after the folder was observed in Trump’s private quarters at the property Donald Trump’s lawyers turned over an empty manilla folder marked “Classified Evening Briefing” after the US justice department issued a subpoena for its surrender once prosecutors became aware that it was located inside the private quarters of the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort, two sources familiar with the matter said.The previously unreported subpoena was issued last month, the sources said, as the recently appointed special counsel escalates the inquiry into Trump’s possible unauthorized retention of national security materials and obstruction of justice.Mike Pence subpoenaed in Trump special counsel investigations – reportsRead moreThe folder was seen in Trump’s residence by a team of investigators he hired to search his properties last year for any remaining documents marked as classified. The team transparently included the observation in an inventory of Mar-a-Lago and Trump properties in Florida, New Jersey and New York.Weeks after the report was sent to the justice department, the sources said, federal prosecutors subpoenaed the folder. The folder is understood to have not been initially returned because the lawyers thought “Classified Evening Briefing” did not make it classified, nor is it a formal classification marking.The backstory the justice department was told about the folder was that Trump would sometimes ask to keep the envelopes, featuring only the “Classified Evening Briefings” in red lettering, as keepsakes after briefings were delivered, one of the sources said.Around the same time that Trump’s lawyers turned over the empty folder – earlier reported by CNN – they also returned in December a box of presidential schedules at Mar-a-Lago of which a couple were marked as classified, and in January, a laptop on to which the contents of the box had been scanned last year by a junior aide.The mishandling of those materials appears to have been inadvertent – in which case, the justice department would be unlikely to include them in the criminal investigation, which has been far more focused on the documents that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago last summer.But the contentious saga reflects the deteriorating relationship between federal prosecutors who have become frustrated at Trump’s resistance towards the inquiry and his lawyers who have complained that the justice department has been unnecessarily heavy-handed at every turn.A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office declined to comment.Late last year, Trump hired a team of two private contractors with security clearances to search his properties after the department told his lawyers that they suspected the former president was still in possession of classified-marked documents even after the FBI search in August.The contractors found and immediately returned two documents, both marked as classified at the “SECRET” level, from boxes that appeared to have been unopened since they were shipped from the White House at the end of the Trump administration, the Guardian previously reported.Then, at Mar-a-Lago in December, the contractors found a box that mainly contained presidential schedules, in which they found a couple of classified-marked documents to also be present and alerted the legal team to return the materials to the justice department, the sources said.The exact nature of the classified-marked documents remains unclear, but a person with knowledge of the search likened their sensitivity to schedules for presidential movements – for instance, presidential travel to Afghanistan – that are considered sensitive until they have taken place.Trump documents: Congress offered briefing on records kept at Mar-a-LagoRead moreAfter the Trump legal team turned over the box of schedules, the sources said, they learned that a junior Trump aide – employed by Trump’s Save America political action committee who acted as an assistant in Trump’s political “45 Office” – last year scanned and uploaded the contents of the box to a laptop.The junior Trump aide, according to what one of the sources said, was apparently instructed to upload the documents by top Trump aide Molly Michael to create a repository of what Trump was doing while in office and was apparently careless in scanning them on to her work laptop.When the Trump legal team told the justice department about the uploads, federal prosecutors demanded the laptop and its password, warning that they would otherwise move to obtain a grand jury subpoena summoning the junior aide to Washington to grant them access to the computer.To avoid a subpoena, the Trump legal team agreed to turn over the laptop in its entirety last month, though they did not allow federal prosecutors to collect it from Mar-a-Lago.ABC News earlier reported the handover.“This is nothing more than a politically-motivated witch-hunt against President Trump,” a spokesman for Trump said in a statement. “The weaponized Department of Injustice has shown no regard for common decency and key rules that govern the legal system.”It was around the same time in January as the justice department retrieved the laptop that federal prosecutors in the office of the Trump special counsel Jack Smith issued a grand jury subpoena for the manilla folder marked “Classified Evening Briefing” observed in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago private quarters.TopicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationMar-a-LagoUS CongressUS politicsUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      How the Durham inquiry backfired to show weaponization of Trump DoJ

      by

      How the Durham inquiry backfired to show weaponization of Trump DoJ Investigation into origin of FBI Trump-Russia inquiry is ending with little to show but questions over its own political bias When the Trump justice department tapped a US attorney to examine the origins of the FBI inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, conservatives and many Republicans hoped it would end the idea Donald Trump’s campaign was boosted by Moscow and back his charges that some FBI officials and others had conspired against him.Trump documents: Congress offered briefing on records kept at Mar-a-LagoRead moreBut instead, as the multi-year investigation winds down, it is ending with accusations that unethical actions by that special counsel – John Durham – and ex-attorney general William Barr “weaponized” the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to help Trump.Former DoJ officials and top Democrats are voicing strong criticism that Durham and Barr acted improperly in the almost four-year-old inquiry, citing an in-depth New York Times story that added to other evidence the inquiry looked politically driven to placate Trump’s anger at an investigation he deemed a “witch-hunt”.The Times report provided disturbing new details, for instance, about how a key prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, quit Durham’s team in 2020 over “ethical” concerns, including his close dealings with Barr, and discussions about releasing an unorthodox interim report before the 2020 election that might have helped Trump, but which didn’t come to fruition.Critics of the Durham inquiry also noted early on that Barr on several occasions, and contrary to longtime DoJ policies, suggested publicly that Durham’s inquiry would yield significant results, which in effect would help validate Trump’s charges that some officials at the FBI and CIA had led a political witch-hunt.Further, Barr and Durham, in highly unusual public statements early in their investigation, tried to undermine a chief conclusion of a report by the DoJ inspector general, Michael Horowitz, that the Russia investigation was based on sufficient facts to warrant opening the investigation in 2016.Ex-DoJ officials say the Durham inquiry seemed aimed from the start at boosting Trump’s political fortunes.“It was clear to people following the Durham investigation as it unfolded that it was highly irregular from the start,” said former deputy AG Donald Ayer who served in the George HW Bush administration “Indeed there’s good reason to believe that its purpose and primary function was to create fodder to advance Trump’s election prospects.”Critics note that Barr tapped Durham to lead the investigation just a month after special counsel Robert Mueller issued a large report documenting substantial ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia, and concluded that Moscow tried to sway the election to help Trump in “sweeping” and “systematic” ways, a conclusion Barr and Trump worked to downplay.Despite Trump’s pressures and Durham’s sprawling investigation, including unusual overseas trips with Barr to interview officials in Italy and England about potential flaws in the Russia investigation, the inquiry notched just one minor conviction of a mid-level ex-FBI official for falsifying a document. There were also two embarrassing acquittals.The Times report revealed too that Durham had uncovered evidence during his Italy trip of possible criminal misconduct by Trump, but it’s unknown what that entailed and how much he pursued that element of the inquiry.Durham also reportedly spent time investigating a conspiratorial and dubious lead that seemed aimed at connecting an aide to billionaire George Soros, a leading Democratic donor, to the early Russian meddling investigation and the campaign of Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton.Besides Nora Dannehy, who left Durham’s office in 2020, two other prosecutors on Durham’s team reportedly left later after raising concerns about the wisdom of pursuing a prosecution against a lawyer with ties to Clinton’s campaign that ultimately led to an acquittal.For ex-DoJ leaders and top Democrats, the latest allegations about the political motives that drove Durham and Barr underscore earlier signs that the ‘investigation into the investigators” was handled improperly.“The Durham special counsel investigation was tainted from the outset by the excessive involvement of attorney general Barr and its reaching significant conclusions before it had done any significant investigation,” said the ex-DoJ inspector general Michael Bromwich.Bromwich added: “From the outset, there was no pretense that this was an independent investigation in which the facts would determine the outcome. The scorecard: an interminable, four-year investigation; a single conviction based on a case handed over by the IG on a silver platter; and two humiliating acquittals. There has never been a record like that in the half-century history of independent counsels and special counsels.”Top Democrats too are incensed by the conduct of the Durham investigation and Barr’s role in the inquiry.Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee who served on the House January 6 select committee that investigated the Capitol insurrection, said:“The whole course of the Durham investigation suggests the heights of prosecutorial misconduct. It’s hard to imagine a better case study of the weaponization of Justice than what Barr was doing with the Durham inquiry.”The Senate judiciary committee chairman, Richard Durbin, said: “These reports about abuses in special counsel Durham’s investigation – so outrageous that even his longtime colleagues quit in protest – are but one of many instances where former President Trump and his allies weaponized the justice department. The justice department should work on behalf of the American people, not for the personal benefit of any president.”Durbin added that the Senate judiciary committee would “take a hard look at these repeated episodes, and the regulations and policies that enabled them, to ensure such abuses of power cannot happen again”.Last September, Durbin notified DoJ that the judiciary panel planned to look into explosive details in a book by Geoffrey Berman, the ex-chief of DoJ’s southern district office in Manhattan, about political interference by Barr and Trump loyalists in several investigations.Trump attorney general Barr a liar, bully and thug, says fired US attorney in bookRead moreBerman wrote that Barr in 2019 sought unsuccessfully to pressure him to reverse the conviction of Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen on campaign finance violations, and to block related investigations into potential campaign finance violations.Barr also pressured Berman to resign with an eye to replacing him with a Trump loyalist, but after Berman refused to step down Trump fired him.Together, the charges by Berman, and the evidence amassed by the Times, paint a troubling picture of how Barr seemed to lean over backwards to boost Trump politically, until after the 2020 election when Barr eventually publicly rejected Trump’s claims of fraud.The justice department did not respond to requests from the Guardian seeking a comment from Durham who is expected to write a final report about his inquiry later this year. Dannehy also did not reply to phone messages asking for comment.Barr last week told the Los Angeles Times: “The idea that there was a thin basis for doing [the Durham investigation] doesn’t hold water.” Barr added that “one of the duties of the attorney general is to protect against the abuse of criminal and intelligence powers, that they’re not abused to impinge on political activity, so I felt it was my duty to find out what happened there”.Critics note that Barr’s defense is weak since Durham was tapped just a month after special counsel Robert Mueller issued an extensive report documenting substantial ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia, and concluded that Moscow tried to sway the election to help Trump in “sweeping” and “systematic” ways.Barr’s defense of the Durham investigation’s launch looks shaky too, given public comments Barr made in congressional testimony at a Senate committee hearing in 2019. Barr was asked several times by then senator Kamala Harris if Trump or any White House officials had suggested or pressured him to launch his sweeping review. Barr was evasive, but acknowledged some “discussions” of the matter had occurred, adding “they have not asked me to open an investigation”.For Raskin, the growing evidence of misconduct in the Durham investigation comes at an ironic moment, as the House Republican majority has created a special panel on the judiciary committee to look into the “weaponization of the government” that’s expected to focus heavily on the Biden administration and the Department of Justice and the FBI.The Republican majority “created a weaponization committee which is a precise and accurate description of their own activities in transforming the government to be a political weapon for Donald Trump and his inner circle”, Raskin said. “Of course, they don’t have any interest in looking at the corruption of the justice system under Trump.”TopicsDonald TrumpFBICIAUS politicsTrump administrationRussiafeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump documents: Congress offered briefing on records kept at Mar-a-Lago

      by

      Trump documents: Congress offered briefing on records kept at Mar-a-LagoLawmakers may not be satisfied given subsequent discoveries involving Joe Biden and Mike Pence US officials have offered to brief congressional leaders on their investigation into classified documents found at Donald Trump’s Florida residence, people familiar with the matter said on Sunday.Ted Cruz wants two-term limit for senators – and a third term for himselfRead moreA briefing could come as soon as this week but may not meet demands from lawmakers who want to review documents taken not just from Mar-a-Lago but also from the Delaware home and former Washington office of Joe Biden and the Indiana home of Trump’s vice-president, Mike Pence.Six months after agents at Mar-a-Lago conducted an unprecedented search of a former president’s home, the Biden White House faces bipartisan pressure to share what it found. Separate special counsels are investigating documents found in the possession of Trump and Biden.Officials have declined to answer most questions about what they found at Mar-a-Lago, citing the ongoing criminal investigation and a separate “risk assessment” of possible damage to intelligence sources.Mike Turner, who chairs the House intelligence committee, told NBC’s Meet the Press the administration told him it would brief this week.“This administration needs to understand we do have national security urgent matters,” the Ohio Republican said. He also called on the White House to brief him on the Chinese balloon shot down off the Carolinas on Saturday.He said: “What’s interesting is that the moment this balloon became public, I got a notice not from the administration that I’m going to get a briefing on this balloon, but they have to rush to Congress now to talk to us about Donald Trump’s documents.”Three people familiar with the matter confirmed a briefing was offered to the “gang of eight” – the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and both intelligence committees. The people spoke on condition of anonymity. Any briefing is not expected to include direct access to documents, the people said.Senators Mark Warner and Marco Rubio, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate intelligence committee, asked for that access in a letter to the attorney general, Merrick Garland, and the director of national intelligence, Avril Haines.It was unclear if the administration will discuss the Biden and Pence records. Turner told NBC records linked to Biden and Pence would be included but two sources said the briefing was expected to focus on Trump.The director of national intelligence and Department of Justice declined to comment.The justice department says around 300 documents with classified markings, including at the top-secret level, were recovered from Mar-a-Lago last August. FBI agents executed a search warrant after evidence led them to believe Trump and his representatives had not returned all classified files.Material taken included around 13,000 government documents, about 100 bearing classification markings. Some material was so sensitive justice department prosecutors and FBI investigators required additional security clearance.A special counsel, Jack Smith, is investigating whether to bring charges against Trump or anyone else. Prosecutors have said they are investigating possible violations of criminal statutes including willful retention of national defense information and obstruction. A grand jury in Washington has been hearing evidence and prosecutors have interviewed Trump associates.Trump has claimed the materials were declassified and that he had the power to do so just by thinking – a claim his lawyers have not repeated. They tried to have an independent arbiter conduct a review of the documents. A federal appeals court said Trump’s team was not entitled to that assessment.TopicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS SenateUS politicsUS national securitynewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Why prosecutors might get Trump – and not Biden – for classified documents

      by

      AnalysisWhy prosecutors might get Trump – and not Biden – for classified documentsHugo Lowell in WashingtonTrump’s situation is more perilous because of his reluctance to cooperate and his suspected obstruction of justice Donald Trump’s retention of classified-marked documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort is distinguished in the eyes of the justice department from that of Joe Biden or Mike Pence as a result of one particularly crucial difference: suspected obstruction of justice.In the case of the classified documents, it’s more serious for Trump than BidenRead moreLegal experts believe the situation for the former US president is more perilous than others swept up in the scandal because of his reluctance to cooperate at key moments in the investigation and his unwillingness to proactively search his properties for marked documents after becoming aware that he possessed such papers.The justice department has added in court filings that it suspected Trump of concealing classified-marked documents at Mar-a-Lago – and while that might be the most aggressive characterization, the trouble for Trump is that he has handled his case far differently from Biden and Pence.The recent discoveries of marked documents, first at Biden’s office in Washington and home in Delaware, and then at Pence’s home in Indiana, reflect how presidential transitions are chaotic and senior government officials are clearly unaware of the contents of boxes packed by aides.But what matters to the justice department – and what distinguishes an inadvertent error from a potential crime – is what happens once classified-marked documents are found and whether officials take steps to ensure they have returned any such papers to the government.“If they found Trump took them away, purposely, but then as soon as the archives said he had, he said: ‘Oops, sorry, here have them back,’ I don’t think they would be considering charges,” former US attorney Harry Litman said of the criminal investigation into Trump.To date, Biden and Pence freely gave up the marked documents as soon as they were found and proactively allowed their lawyers to search their properties out of an abundance of caution – whereas the department found getting documents back from Trump to be a monumental struggle.Trump’s legal team has suggested the first time they knew of classified-marked documents in the former president’s possession was when they were issued a grand jury subpoena on 11 May, demanding the return by 24 May of any marked papers, regardless of whether they had been declassified.Trump’s lawyer Evan Corcoran asked for a roughly two-week extension to comply with the subpoena, which the justice department initially declined, before giving him a one-week extension until 7 June. Corcoran then told the department they could collect documents on 3 June.At Mar-a-Lago, Corcoran returned a folder of documents and, at Trump’s urging, took the officials from the justice department to the storage room that he had searched, and asked them to be in touch if they needed anything more. The Trump lawyers also presented a sworn statement attesting compliance.Trump’s legal team has said the 3 June meeting was not obstructive, since Corcoran believed, albeit erroneously, that he was in full compliance and Trump went out of his way to show them the storage room that had been searched, and was prepared to let them search it themselves had they asked.Biden and Pence documents reveal US crisis of ‘overclassification’, expert saysRead moreBut from the perspective of federal prosecutors, a source familiar with the matter said, the overtures were deceptive: the compliance was incomplete, and the FBI seized 101 classified-marked documents from the property, including from the storage room that they passed off as clear.“The big element here is that you know they want the documents back and you resist or impair,” Litman said. “That false certification is strong evidence of intent. It’s hard to say: ‘Oh, you wanted them all back, I’m so sorry, we’ve been so busy,’ when they signed that paper.”The prosecutors, the source said, have not regarded being shown the storage room to be a mitigating factor for an additional reason: the burden to ensure compliance with a grand jury subpoena was not on the justice department and tacitly allowing them to search the room was meaningless.For Trump’s case to mirror that of Biden or Pence, Trump essentially would have had to comply with the subpoena, but then proactively conduct another search of his resort – as Biden later did with his home – and proactively search his other properties, as Biden did with his beach house.But as it turned out, once the justice department left Mar-a-Lago that day in June, Trump’s lawyers made no effort to ensure no more classified-documents remained at the resort, or any other property, until the department repeatedly sought them to do so around Thanksgiving – a search that turned up two more marked papers.TopicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationMar-a-LagoBiden administrationJoe BidenUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Never Give an Inch review: Mike Pompeo as ‘heat-seeking missile for Trump’s ass’

      by

      ReviewNever Give an Inch review: Mike Pompeo as ‘heat-seeking missile for Trump’s ass’ The former secretary of state wants to be president. His vicious memoir will sell, but he may not find buyers at the pollsMike Pompeo is prescient, at least. Back in 2016, as a congressman, he warned Kansas Republicans of the danger posed by Donald Trump. Pompeo lamented that the US had already endured more than seven years of “an authoritarian president who ignored our constitution” – meaning Barack Obama – and cautioned that a Trump presidency would be no different.Schiff calls Mike Pompeo ‘failed Trump lackey’ after classified records claimRead more“It’s time to turn down the lights on the circus,” he said.Pompeo is an ex-army captain who graduated first in his class at West Point. But in the face of Trump’s triumphs, he turned tail and sucked-up. Pompeo was CIA director then secretary of state. On the job, his sycophancy grew legendary.“He’s like a heat-seeking missile for Trump’s ass,” a former ambassador recalled to Susan Glasser of the New Yorker.Never Give an Inch is Pompeo’s opening salvo in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. On cue, he puckers up to Trump, the only declared candidate so far, and thanks Mike Pence, a likely contestant, for bringing him into the fold. But where others are concerned, Never Give an Inch doubles as a burn book.Pompeo strafes two other possible contenders: Nikki Haley, Trump’s first United Nations ambassador, and John Bolton, Trump’s third national security adviser.Trump, Pompeo says, branded Bolton a “scumbag loser”. Pompeo thinks Bolton should “be in jail, for spilling classified information”. The Room Where it Happened, Bolton’s tell-all book, evidently ruffled feathers. As for Pompeo’s own relationship with classified documents? “I don’t believe I have anything classified.” It’s not exactly a blanket denial.Turning to Haley, Pompeo dings her time as UN ambassador – “a job that is far less important than people think” – and her performance in that post.“She has described her role as going toe-to-toe with tyrants,” he observes. “If so, then why would she quit such an important job at such an important time?”Trump is largely spared criticism but his family isn’t. Ivanka Trump makes a dubious cameo. Jared Kushner is depicted as someone less than serious.Pompeo edited the Harvard Law Review. He can write. His memoir is tart and tight. Filled with barbs, bile and little regret, it is an unexpectedly interesting read. It is not the typical pre-presidential campaign autobiography. This one comes with teeth. Pompeo is always self-serving but never bland.He heaps praise on Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and has kind words for Volodymyr Zelenskiy.“I’m troubled by the evil that has befallen his country,” Pompeo writes of Ukraine, a year into the Russian invasion. He also says he is “encouraged” that Zelenskiy, a “onetime Jerry Seinfeld” has “turned into a kind of General Patton”.But while Pompeo deploys the word “authoritarian” more than a dozen times, he never does so in reference to Trump. Trump, remember, has lauded Vladimir Putin as “smart”; praised the Russian president’s war strategy as “wonderful” and “genius”; derided Nato as “dumb”; and unloaded on Joe Biden as “weak”.Pompeo, the brown-noser-in-chief, has zero to say about this.As for Netanyahu, Pompeo is silent on Trump’s reported “fuck him” for the Israeli leader. No Trump appointee has ever dared grapple with that breach of decorum.Pompeo is happy, of course, to blame Obama for alienating Viktor Orban from the US and western Europe, and to sympathize with the Hungarian leader’s efforts to “root his time in office in his nation’s history and Christian faith”. Pompeo’s loyalties are clear. In Hungary this week, Yair Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister’s son, slammed George Soros, the “global elite” and “radical leftist” control of the media.Pompeo is a fan of Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s defeated former leader, who he says “largely modeled his candidacy for president on President Trump”. Words written, presumably, before the mini January 6 in Brasília. Birds of a feather, etc.Pompeo also takes Pope Francis and the Catholic church to task over their relationship with China, and derides both the reformist Pope John XXIII and the liberation theology movement of the 1970s. In 2014, five decades after his death, John XXIII was canonized. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, blurbed Pompeo’s book.As expected, Pompeo basically ignores the insurrection Trump stoked and the attack on Congress it produced. He refers to “mayhem at the Capitol” on 6 January 2021 and targets the “left” for looking to exploit the day’s events, but says nothing of Trump’s concerted effort to subvert democracy and overturn an election.Pompeo knows the GOP base. Three in five Republicans believe voter fraud birthed Biden’s victory. The same number say Trump did nothing wrong on January 6. Not surprisingly, Pompeo omits mention of his own tweets that day or his appearance before the House January 6 committee.“The storming of the US Capitol today is unacceptable,” Pompeo tweeted. “Lawlessness and rioting here or around the world is always unacceptable. Let us swiftly bring justice to the criminals who engaged in this rioting.”Asked about the tweets by committee staff, he responded: “I stand by it.”He also told Liz Cheney, on the record: “I thought the courts and the certification that took place were appropriate … the vice-president [Pence] made the right decision on the evening of 6 January” to certify Biden’s win.None of this appears on the page. Instead, Pompeo gleefully recalls how Trump approved of his loyalty.How well is all this working? Pompeo may well sell books but fail to move the needle. Polls show him at 1% in the notional presidential primary, tied with the likes of Paul Ryan, the former House speaker, and Ted Cruz, the Senate’s own squeegee pest. Pompeo trails Haley and Pence.The appetite for a Pompeo presidency seems … limited. Like Ron DeSantis, he is grim and humorless. Unlike the governor of Florida, Pompeo has no war chest.
      Never Give an Inch: Fighting for the America I Love is published in the US by HarperCollins
      TopicsBooksPolitics booksMike PompeoTrump administrationDonald TrumpRepublicansUS elections 2024reviewsReuse this content More