US crime

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      A crime bill was supposed to fix Washington DC’s problems. Instead, it polarized a city

      by

      A crime bill was supposed to fix Washington DC’s problems. Instead, it polarized a cityThe new code revised 120-year-old criminal laws, but the effort was stymied by Joe Biden and an unlikely alliance of Republicans and DemocratsIn Washington DC, the law prohibits the playing of bandy and “shindy” in the streets, the arson of one’s own steamboat and potentially even being a “common scold” – a common law offense levied against those who quarreled with their neighbors.Aware of the need to clean up this 120-year-old criminal code, lawyers in America’s capital city have spent more than a decade and a half going through the law books in a modernization campaign described by those involved as long overdue, only to see the effort stymied this week at the hands of Joe Biden and an unlikely alliance of Republicans and Democrats.“Many residents are worried about taking their kids to school or going to the grocery store. But rather than attempt to fix this problem, the DC city council wants to go even easier on criminals,” Republican House speaker Kevin McCarthy said in February, when the chamber’s lawmakers approved a resolution blocking the city council’s passage of the new code.Weeks later, Biden surprised his allies by announcing he would sign the House bill, and last Wednesday, the Senate passed it overwhelmingly – even though the president and many Democratic lawmakers support making Washington DC, the country’s only federal district, a full-fledged state.That Republicans would meddle in Washington DC’s politics is no surprise: they have few friends among the leadership of the overwhelmingly Democratic city. But for Democrats, their willingness to go along with the GOP effort is a sign of just how nervous the party has become to accusations of being weak of crime, which played a role in their loss of the House in last November’s elections. Residents’ frustrations with violence are also seen as a reason why Democrat Lori Lightfoot failed in her bid for a second term as mayor of Chicago.No city in America has political dynamics quite like Washington’s, where Congress has the power to overturn the city council’s will – which it did, for the first time in 30 years, over what local officials say was merely an update that would bring its criminal code in line with national standards.“We are an easy mark,” said Charles Allen, a city councilman who chaired its judiciary committee as the body was considering the revisions. “We don’t have representation in Congress, we have no senators out there that are arguing for us. We don’t have any full members of Congress in the House.”Sandwiched between Virginia and Maryland, Washington DC’s population of nearly 700,000 is greater than Vermont or Wyoming, but unlike those two states, the capital city’s only representation in Congress is a House delegate who can’t cast votes. The city government officially backs Washington DC becoming America’s 51st state, which Republicans universally oppose.In 2006, the council started reviewing the city’s criminal laws, which date back to 1901, and sought out the thoughts of the public defenders office, local prosecutors and criminal justice reform advocates across the city. The outcome of the 16-year process was a new code that removed mandatory minimum sentences for nearly all crimes, aligned sentences with what judges were actually handing down, added new offenses and raised the potential penalties for others, while also stripping out common law penalties that lingered in the turn-of-the-century document.But after the council unanimously passed the revised code last November, the city’s Democratic mayor Muriel Bowser announced she would veto it, citing its reduction in maximum sentences for gun offenses, among other issues. Republicans pounced after the council overrode her veto in January, and the following month, Biden unexpectedly signed on to the GOP effort.“I support DC statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes DC council put forward over the mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings,” the Democratic president tweeted.Although police department data indicates overall crime in the city fell by about 4% last year, carjackings have jumped dramatically since the pandemic. Under the current code, armed carjackers could face jail sentences of between 15 and 40 years, but the new code sets the highest penalty at 24 years, in line with what judges were actually giving defendants and comparable to similar penalties nationwide, said Jinwoo Park, executive director of the DC Criminal Code Reform Commission.“I do think this has been completely inaccurately and unfairly painted as some kind of bizarrely radical bill, when really it’s just not the case when you compare it to the norms across the country,” Park said.Studies have repeatedly shown that long prison sentences don’t act as deterrents for criminals. And for Washington’s current batch of carjackers, the code’s revisions would not have made much difference: it was only supposed to come into effect in 2025.“Every crime people are talking about, from yesterday to today to tomorrow, happens under our current criminal code,” said Allen.There’s little evidence that message was received by Congress, particularly not by Republicans, who cast the code revision as consequence of left-wing government run amok – even though they held no hearings on the code before voting to overturn it.“It seems to me that DC is trying to compete with other liberal-led cities to see just how woke they can be. So, just imagine if Congress didn’t have this authority and the DC council was left to its own devices, and this dangerous bill would’ve become law,” said Bill Hagerty, Tennessee’s Republican senator, after almost all the chamber’s Republicans and most Democrats voted for the disapproval resolution.Yet the new code doesn’t address progressive concerns such as mass incarceration or racial equity, which Park said weren’t included in the commission’s mandate.“There’s an enormous amount of compromise built into the bill,” said Patrice Sulton, executive director of the DC Justice Lab, which advocates for reforms of the city’s system of crime and punishment.Local leaders scrambled to react to Congress’s renewed meddling in the city’s affairs, with city council president Phil Mendelson withdrawing the revised code from the legislature’s consideration, and Bowser proposing another round of revisions to the code.“What’s important for this issue is to try to put Democrats in the light of being soft on crime,” Mendelson said as he announced his ill-fated attempt to stop the Senate from blocking the code. “But citizens don’t understand that because [of] the way this has been demagogued, and that’s the challenge we have to overcome.”The GOP has signaled it’s not done yet: House Republicans now want to override a city council bill that would change, among other procedures, how the police department uses force.While he believes there’s still momentum for reform in many cities nationwide, Nick Turner, president of the Vera Institute of Justice, warned that the episode in the capital underscores how rising crime presents a headwind to the calls for change in policing and punishment that George Floyd’s death sparked nearly three years ago.Biden’s veto tell “opponents of good, evidence-based criminal justice policy that scare tactics work. And the risk is that what it signals to other responsible government leaders is that it will show efforts to make sure that we have both safety and justice,” Turner warned.To Sulton, the revised code’s downfall also represents a setback in the city’s desire to take full control of its affairs.“Until we have a new code, we continue to live under laws that are vague, overlapping gaps in law, and just a penal code that the district didn’t make itself,” she said. “And I don’t think you can talk about local control if we don’t have control over our most fundamental freedoms. And I can’t think of anywhere that the stakes are higher than when we’re talking about whether to put a person in a cage.”TopicsWashington DCUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansUS crimenewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The politics of crime: what Chicago’s mayoral race reveals about the US

      by

      The politics of crime: what Chicago’s mayoral race reveals about the USElection could serve as a bellwether for how voters think about public safety as they choose between duelling approachesThere are few issues besides keeping a clean alley that most Chicagoans agree on. Yet, last week, a majority of the city’s voters ousted the incumbent mayor, Lori Lightfoot, in the city’s mayoral primary.With just under 17% of the vote, Lightfoot became the first mayor to fail to advance to the runoff election since Jane Byrne lost the 1983 primary. But the recent election was not a stunning rebuke of Lightfoot, who commanded third place with a loyal base of mostly Black voters on the city’s South and West Sides, but a demand for a radically different approach toward combating crime amid pandemic recovery, with one candidate focused on law and order and the other hoping to boost the social safety net.In Wisconsin’s supreme court race, a super-rich beer family calls the shotsRead moreIn one month, the general election could serve as a bellwether for how Democratic voters across the nation think about crime – a topic that became deeply politicized during an uptick in violence after the onset of Covid-19 and the widespread call for police reform after George Floyd’s murder. Chicago is the third largest city in the US, and its nearly 3 million residents are deeply segregated and break down into almost equal thirds white, Black and Hispanic. What may appear on the surface to be a reliable Democratic stronghold actually encompasses a wide spectrum of moderate liberals, progressives and even some Trump supporters, the latter concentrated among cops, firefighters and other public workers living on the far Northwest Side.At a time when places like New York City and Washington DC are reassessing their approach to public safety issues and rebuilding their communities, Chicago’s election in April could inform how some of the biggest cities move forward.When Lightfoot ascended to power in 2019, the political outsider made history as the first Black, openly gay mayor of Chicago and dominated all 50 of the city’s wards with the optimistic message that she would “bring in the light”.But Lightfoot’s campaign promises of transparency foundered once she took office, particularly when it came to public safety. After Chicago police wrongfully raided the home of a Black woman, Anjanette Young, in 2019 and forced her to stand naked until a female officer arrived, Lightfoot claimed she knew nothing about the incident until local news broke the story. Her own lawyers tried to prevent the local TV station from airing the video of the botched raid and Lightfoot herself later admitted that she was aware of the raid before the news broke. When five alderwomen introduced an ordinance in 2021 banning no-knock raids – building on the momentum of the Breonna Taylor case – Lightfoot opposed the bill and argued it could hamper the police’s ability to respond quickly.At the same time, Lightfoot engaged in a legal battle with the city’s cop union, the Fraternal Order of Police, over a vaccine mandate for public workers. Police expressed their frustration over burnout and multiple canceled days off by literally turning their backs on Lightfoot in 2021.In February’s primary, Lightfoot attempted to thread the needle by marketing herself as a moderate candidate. But many voters bolted in one of two other directions: to the most progressive and conservative options. Paul Vallas and Brandon Johnson, the Cook county commissioner, going head-to-head on 4 April represent dueling philosophies of criminal justice.Vallas, the former CEO of Chicago public schools who came in ninth place in his last run for mayor in 2019, ripped a page from the Republican playbook with a law-and-order message. On election night, he placed crime at the forefront of his campaign, declaring public safety a “civil right”. He also received an endorsement from the Fraternal Order of Police, along with its Trump-supporting president, John Catanzara, and has pledged to fill Chicago’s 1,700 police vacancies.Johnson’s résumé as a former teacher and Chicago Teachers Union deputy political director puts him at immediate odds with Vallas, whom critics say set the stage for the closure of 50 Chicago public schools predominantly in Black and Brown neighborhoods under former mayor Rahm Emanuel. Johnson’s progressive approach toward criminal justice would include a mental health hotline and eliminating no-knock warrants. He also committed to ending the city’s contract with ShotSpotter, which the city’s own inspector general found “rarely leads to evidence of a gun-related crime”. In a televised debate, both Lightfoot and Vallas supported keeping the acoustic gunshot detection tool used by police.Johnson and Vallas agree on some policy issues including changing the Chicago police department’s patrol plan to allocate more police officers during high crime hours. Both have vouched for boosting the number of detectives so that CPD can solve more murders, though Johnson has dodged the question of whether he would reduce CPD’s nearly $2bn budget. But on most issues they represent very different directions for the city.“What we have in this runoff is the tale of two cities in Chicago,” said Constance Mixon, a political science professor and director of the urban studies program at Elmhurst University. “It is a tale of progressives and Brandon Johnson, but it’s also a tale of more conservative voters, particularly in white ethnic neighborhoods on the far north-west and south-west sides of the city … Paul Vallas’s message of crime resonated with them.”Like other cities across the US, violent crime escalated during the pandemic in Chicago. While homicides had been on a steady decline since 2016, they shot up from 500 in 2019 to 776 in 2020. Homicides dropped in 2022, but still rival the rate Chicago saw in the 1990s.“Things like theft and burglary have been trending down for the last two or three decades and the last couple of years is no different. Even overall violence hasn’t increased that much,” said David Olson, a criminal justice professor and co-director of Loyola University’s Center for Criminal Justice Research. “The challenge politically are the crimes that have increased are the ones that are the most serious and the most visible in terms of coverage by the media and attention by people. And rightfully so, given the fact that homicide is the most serious offense.”For years, crime had disproportionately affected Black and Brown communities on the South and West Sides of the city. But since the pandemic started it has increased in those areas, as well as predominantly white and wealthy neighborhoods – spurring fresh outrage and new attention to the issue. Carjackings in Lincoln Square, robberies on the Gold Coast, and kidnappings in Wrigleyville have rattled residents and dominated local headlines.“Wealthier, whiter parts of the city have been safer for many, many years and the violence has persisted on the South and West sides in plain sight without the kind of attention and response that the issue is getting now,” said Roseanna Ander, founding executive director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the University of Chicago Education Lab. Leaders should recognize that public safety strategies should look at persistent problems throughout the entire city, rather than making one part of Chicago safer at the expense of other parts of the city, Ander added.While the post-pandemic rise in crime has frustrated white Chicagoans, Black Chicagoans who have long dealt with the city’s crime problems have left in droves over the past decade. Recent census data showed Chicago’s Black population has dropped by nearly 10% since 2010. Political strategist Delmarie Cobb attributes that exodus to two factors: crime and schools.She asked the police to help her husband. They killed him insteadRead more“Those two issues are front and center for Black people, whereas white people may just be experiencing crime for the first time, but they’re OK with the schools,” Cobb said. “With the tough-on-crime candidates, they’re often who get all the attention and support because those people who are experiencing crime for the first time at this level, they want somebody who can do it quickly.”How the two mayoral candidates communicate their message on crime to Black voters will prove crucial. In the primary, Johnson garnered support from white progressives on the North Side but in order to beat Vallas, he’ll have to court Hispanics on the West Side who voted for his progressive rival, Congressman Jesús G “Chuy” García, and Black voters who backed Lightfoot on the South Side. Vallas is already trying to shore up support from Black politicians, racking up key endorsements from the former Illinois secretary of state Jesse White and Lightfoot’s ally Alderman Walter Burnett. Toni Preckwinkle, Lightfoot’s rival in the 2019 election, and US congressman Danny Davis, who represents much of the South and West Sides, endorsed Johnson.Johnson may have trouble taking the middle road in the general election. Though his policies on criminal justice reform fired up a progressive base in the primary, Johnson has tried to distance himself from past comments on defunding the police. When it comes to filling police vacancies, Johnson told Block Club Chicago that hiring more officers wouldn’t solve the city’s crime problem, instead saying that funding could be reallocated by shifting officers’ roles and hiring additional emergency service responders.During one primary debate, Lightfoot questioned how Johnson would boost the number of detectives without increasing the police budget.“He says he wants to promote detectives,” Lightfoot said. “When you promote detectives then you’ve got to backfill the patrol officers and if he’s not willing to commit to not defunding the police, he’s gonna have less officers on the street and our communities are gonna be less safe.”It is possible that Johnson could reallocate funding rather than increasing CPD’s budget, counters Craig Futterman, a clinical professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and director of the school’s Civil Rights and Police Accountability Project.“Within a fixed budget, you can put less of your officers in the kind of stop-and-frisk mode, street policing mode and more in investigating mode,” he said. “That’s not necessarily going to cost you more money.”For Vallas, the endorsement from the Fraternal Order of Police will either become his winning advantage or his achilles heel. The group welcomed Florida’s conservative governor Ron DeSantis for a speech in February while its president, Catanzara, has landed in the news for defending January 6 rioters and comparing Lightfoot’s vaccine mandate to the Nazi Germany.More than the endorsements, however, voters may choose based on their visceral feelings about what’s needed to reduce crime, Olson said.“For a lot of people, their gut feeling is, well, if we just had more police, that would address the problem, and it’s more complicated than that,” he said.“So if one candidate presents this blunt: ‘We just need more police’, that may swing some folks. If another approaches with: ‘We’ve got to address the root causes, this is a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution’, that might resonate because they see that as perhaps being a more realistic understanding.”TopicsChicagoUS crimeUS policingUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Alex Murdaugh’s brother gives first interview since trial: ‘He knows more’

      by

      Alex Murdaugh’s brother gives first interview since trial: ‘He knows more’In New York Times interview, Randy Murdaugh says he remains unsure if his brother murdered son and wife in South CarolinaAlex Murdaugh, the disgraced South Carolina lawyer found guilty of murdering his wife and son, has long been a thief and liar – but his being a convicted killer is still a shock, his brother has said in the first interview a member of the family has given since the trial.In an interview with the New York Times, Randy Murdaugh said he remained unsure if Alex murdered his son and wife in June 2021. Randy Murdaugh added that while he respects the jury’s verdict, he has known Alex as a protective father and husband.Murder and mystery in the south: how the Murdaugh trial gripped AmericaRead more“He knows more than what he’s saying,” said Randy Murdaugh, referring to Alex’s lying about the murder. “He’s not telling the truth, in my opinion, about everything there.”Randy, Alex’s older brother, said in the interview that the pair were not close, despite going to the same college and law school, and working at the family’s law firm together.“It’s not like there was some problem with our relationship, necessarily,” Randy Murdaugh said. “We just really weren’t alike, so we didn’t do stuff together.”Weeks after the murder, Randy Murdaugh said that much of the family rallied around Alex, who suggested the killing of his 22-year-old son Paul was due to Paul’s involvement in a fatal 2019 boating accident. Maggie Murdaugh, Alex’s wife, was shot dead alongside Paul.Months after the murders, Randy confronted Alex about financial records that showed Alex had embezzled millions from the family business. In an emotional conversation, Randy recalled, Alex admitted to stealing, and to a severe addiction to painkillers.Alex promised never to lie to Randy again, Randy said, but soon broke that pledge. A day later, Alex told police and Randy that he had been shot on the side of the road by an unknown person.Police later said Alex Murdaugh had arranged to have someone else shoot him, in the hopes that his surviving son Buster could collect his life insurance money.Randy soon stopped speaking with Alex, who has been charged with stealing more than $8m from the family firm. The pair have not spoken in almost a year.But in July last year, when Alex was arrested over the murder of his wife and son, Randy re-examined aspects of what he knew about his younger brother.Randy Murdaugh told the newspaper that the family has dealt with similar uncertainty, given the gruesome nature of the crime and the previous understanding they had of Alex.“The not knowing,” Randy Murdaugh said, “is the worst thing there is.”Randy Murdaugh’s interview stands in sharp contrast from statements given by Alex’s defense lawyers, who have said that the Murdaugh family fully believes he did not murder anyone. His lawyers also said the family supports him.On Friday, Alex Murdaugh was given two sentences of life imprisonment after being found guilty of the murders of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh. The sentences capped a six-week, televised trial in which Alex maintained his innocence, though that was undermined by cellphone video captured by his son that placed him at the scene of the murders shortly before they occurred.Randy said the Murdaugh family is focused on supporting Buster, who has lost his immediate family. Randy said his life has attracted international attention given his brother’s crimes.Randy told the New York Times he hoped the trial would give him some closure and an answer about the circumstances around the death of his nephew and sister-in-law, but he said he has not stopped thinking about it.“I hoped that after the trial, because there’s nothing more that can be presented, that I’d stop thinking about this,” Randy Murdaugh said. “But so far, that has not been the case.”TopicsAlex MurdaughUS politicsSouth CarolinaUS crimeLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 rioter who used stun gun on officer Michael Fanone pleads guilty

      by

      January 6 rioter who used stun gun on officer Michael Fanone pleads guiltyDaniel Rodriguez, 40, from California, admitted his part in violent assault of then Metropolitan police officer A California man pleaded guilty on Tuesday to using a stun gun to attack Michael Fanone, the Washington DC police officer who was seriously injured while trying to defend the US Capitol from Donald Trump’s supporters on 6 January 2021.‘Devoid of shame’: January 6 cop Michael Fanone on Trump’s Republican partyRead moreDaniel Rodriguez, 40, of Fontana, admitted to taking part in the violent assault on Fanone, now a former Metropolitan police officer, after another rioter dragged Fanone into a crowd outside a tunnel where police were trying to beat back the mob.Fanone, who lost consciousness and suffered a heart attack, was heard on camera screaming he had kids, in a desperate appeal for his life, as rioters beat him.Rodriguez’s guilty plea came about two weeks before jury selection in his trial in federal court in Washington. He pleaded guilty to four felony charges including conspiracy and assaulting a law enforcement officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon.An email seeking comment was sent to his lawyers. He was scheduled to be sentenced in May. Federal sentencing guidelines call for about seven to 10 years in prison.Rodriguez admitted in an FBI interview in March 2021 that he drove a stun gun into Fanone’s neck. Rodriguez told agents he believed that he was doing the “right thing” and had been prepared to die to “save the country”. He cried as he spoke, saying he was “stupid” and ashamed of his actions.Rodriguez’s attorneys tried to stop prosecutors using his FBI interview at trial, arguing that the agents used “psychologically coercive tactics”.Authorities say Rodriguez and others were part of a Telegram group chat called “PATRIOTS 45 MAGA Gang” in the run-up to January 6, in which they advocated violence and discussed Trump’s claim of a stolen election.In a post on 29 December 2020, Rodriguez wrote: “Congress can hang. I’ll do it. Please let us get these people dear God.”At the Capitol, Rodriguez was part of the mob that pushed into the tunnel, prosecutors said. Inside, another rioter handed him the stun gun he would apply to Fanone’s neck. After assaulting Fanone, Rodriguez entered the Capitol through a broken window. Later, he texted his friends: “Tased the fuck out of the blue.”Others charged with assaulting Fanone include Albuquerque Cosper Head, who wrapped his arms round Fanone’s neck and dragged him into the crowd. Head restrained Fanone while others attacked him. Head was sentenced in October to more than seven years in prison after pleading guilty to assault.Fanone said at Head’s sentencing he suffered a heart attack and a traumatic brain injury, injuries that cost him his police career. He has written a book about his experience and testified before the House January 6 committee.January 6 rioter with Confederate flag sentenced to three yearsRead moreAnother man, Kyle Young, who helped in the assault, was sentenced in September to seven years and two months in prison. Young grabbed Fanone by the wrist while others yelled “Kill him!” and “Get his gun!”The sentences handed to Fanone’s attackers are among the longest handed down in relation to January 6.Nearly 1,000 people have been charged with federal crimes. More than 500 have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors. Approximately 400 have been sentenced, with more than half given prison sentences ranging from seven days to 10 years.The House January 6 committee made four criminal referrals to the Department of Justice regarding Trump’s incitement of the attack. Federal investigations continue.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsUS crimeUS policingnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Untouchable review: Trump as ‘lawless Houdini’ above US justice

      by

      ReviewUntouchable review: Trump as ‘lawless Houdini’ above US justice Elie Honig offers a powerful indictment of the former president and those who have failed to bring him downThis book by a former federal prosecutor is subtitled “How Powerful People Get Away With It” but its overwhelming focus is Donald Trump and Merrick Garland, the most famous unindicted miscreant of modern times and the attorney general most responsible for the failure, so far, to prosecute any of his offences.People vs Donald Trump review: Mark Pomerantz pummels Manhattan DARead moreElie Honig writes that a “staggering parade” of Trump’s henchmen have been indicted, convicted, imprisoned or all three: Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, Thomas Barrack, Elliott Broidy, Sam Patten, George Nader, Allen Weisselberg and – last but not least – the Trump Organization itself.And yet, somehow, “a lawless Houdini … stands at the epicenter of the carnage, untouched, undeterred, and, if anything, emboldened”.Honig thinks the district attorney of Fulton county, Georgia, is still “the most likely to indict Trump” for his efforts to tamper with election results. But Honig makes a powerful case that “the prime opportunities to hold Trump criminally accountable for his actions have passed”, as federal and state prosecutors, especially Garland, “have fumbled away their best chances and inexcusably allowed years to lapse without meaningful action”.In the last four years, justice department leaders have zigzagged between extremes. First there was the wildly political and persistently dishonest William Barr, whose efforts to keep Trump safe ranged from keeping his name out of the indictment of Cohen for illegal hush money paid to Stormy Daniels, to Barr’s flatly false assertion that evidence developed by the special counsel Robert Mueller was “not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense”.Then came Garland, who is the opposite of Barr but who so far has managed to be nearly as helpful to Trump as his predecessor.“The problem,” Honig writes, “is in seeking to … restore political independence [for the justice department], Garland has gone too far …“It’s one thing to do the job without regard to politics. But it’s another to contort ordinary prosecutorial judgement to avoid doing anything that might even be perceived as political or controversial.”Honig prosecuted more than a hundred members of the mafia. He recounts several such cases, highlighting the similarities between the chiefs of famous families like the Luccheses and Gambinos and the man at the top of the Trump Organization.One way in which they operate the same way is to make sure subordinates lie to protect their boss, without being directly ordered to do so. For example, Cohen perjured himself when he said Trump’s efforts to build a tower in Moscow ended before the Iowa caucuses in 2016. They actually continued for months, into the “heart of the presidential campaign”.Honig writes: “Trump never said to Cohen, ‘I need you to lie for me.’ Instead, Trump openly lied in public about the timing of the Russia deal ‘for all to see’ – including Cohen.“Therein lies the beauty of being a boss. Trump never said the magic words that would have obviously given rise to criminal liability.”Honig also focuses on the dubious ethics of the former Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr, who bungled a chance to indict two of Trump’s children over the Trump Soho project, then did the same with an investigation of Trump himself.The lawyer for Donald Trump Jr and Ivanka Trump was Marc Kasowitz. As the New Yorker, ProPublica and WNYC reported, Kasowitz gave Vance a $25,000 campaign contribution in January 2012 – just five months before meeting with Vance about the Trump kids’ case.Vance returned Kasowitz’s contribution just before his meeting with Kasowitz. Three months after the meeting, Vance dropped the case against the Trumps. Incredibly, just a few weeks after that, “Vance accepted a brand new, even larger campaign contribution from Kasowitz, who personally donated almost $32,000 and raised at least $18,000 more.” Five years later – only after the New Yorker had reported those additional contributions – Vance returned Kasowitz’s contribution again!“This much is beyond dispute,” Honig writes. “The sequence here looked terrible.”But no one comes out looking worse than Garland. Trump was protected while he was in the White House by a decades-old justice department memoranda which concluded it was impossible to indict a sitting president. After 21 January 2021, Trump lost that protection. But for many months, Garland did nothing concrete to take advantage.Honig offers the seven-count indictment he says he would have brought against Trump if he were the prosecutor in charge. It would include:
      Count 1: obstruction of justice. The Mueller report’s description of Trump’s firing of the FBI director James Comey and his attempts to fire special counsel Mueller provides overwhelming evident that “Trump obstructed justice”.
      Count 2: campaign finance violations connected to hush money paid to two of Trump’s alleged former girlfriends.
      Count 3: bribery, extortion, foreign election aid and witness retaliating and tampering, all of which were the subject of Trump’s first impeachment.
      Count 4: conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding and election interference – the subject of the second impeachment.
      Myth America review: superb group history of the lies that built a nationRead moreHonig’s final conclusion: while “Garland plays by Marquess of Queensbury rules”, Trump is “a remorseless street brawler”. Garland could have brought criminal charges “but he didn’t, at least not in a timely manor … As many advantages as the system gave to Trump, and as aggressive and effective as he has been in explaining them, Garland still could have achieved some measure of justice, if he had just done his job.”This week brought the news that Jack Smith, the special counsel belatedly appointed by Garland to investigate Trump, had subpoenaed Trump’s former vice-president, Mike Pence, as part of his investigation of the former president’s post-election activities.Perhaps the justice department will manage to defy expectations and return an indictment against Donald Trump. This powerful book, however, offers very little hope for that most desirable outcome.
      Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It is published in the US by Harper
      TopicsBooksLaw (US)US crimeUS politicsPolitics booksDonald TrumpJeffrey EpsteinreviewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      People vs Donald Trump review: Mark Pomerantz pummels Manhattan DA

      by

      ReviewPeople vs Donald Trump review: Mark Pomerantz pummels Manhattan DAProsecutor who helped convict John Gotti thinks Alvin Bragg let Trump slip from the hook. His memoir proves controversial Mark Pomerantz is a well-credentialed former federal prosecutor. As a younger man he clerked for a supreme court justice and helped send the mob boss John Gotti to prison. He did stints in corporate law. In 2021, he left retirement to join the investigation of Donald Trump by the Manhattan district attorney. Pomerantz’s time with the DA was substantive but controversial.Trump porn star payment a ‘zombie case’ that wouldn’t die, ex-prosecutor says in bookRead moreIn summer 2021, he helped deliver an indictment for tax fraud against the Trump Organization and Alan Weisselberg, its chief financial officer. At the time, Cy Vance Jr, the son of Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state, was Manhattan DA. Pomerantz also interviewed Michael Cohen, Trump fanboy turned convicted nemesis, pored over documents and clamored for the indictment of the former president on racketeering charges.For Pomerantz, nailing Trump for his hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, the adult film star who claims an affair Trump denies, didn’t pass muster. But that avenue of prosecution was a “zombie case” that wouldn’t die. It still hasn’t: a Manhattan grand jury again hears evidence.Pomerantz saw Trump as a criminal mastermind aided by flunkies and enforcers. He believed charges ought to align with the gravity of the crimes. But as Pomerantz now repeatedly writes in his memoir, Alvin Bragg, elected district attorney in November 2021, did not want to move against Trump. In early 2022, Bragg balked. In March, Pomerantz quit – and leaked his resignation letter.“I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the penal law,” Pomerantz fumed. “I fear that your decision means that Mr Trump will not be held fully accountable for his crimes.”Now comes the memoir, People vs Donald Trump: An Inside Account. It is a 300-page exercise in score-settling and scorn. Pomerantz loathes Trump and holds Bragg in less than high regard. He equates the former president with Gotti and all but dismisses the DA as a progressive politician, not an actual crime-fighter.In a city forever plagued by crime and political fights about it, Bragg’s time as DA has proved controversial: over guns, trespassing, turnstile jumping, marijuana and, yes, the squeegee men.Bragg is African American. This week, a group of high-ranking Black officials protested against Pomerantz’s attacks. In response, Pomerantz called Bragg “respected, courageous, ethical and thoughtful” but said: “I disagreed with him about the decision he made in the Trump case.”In his resignation letter, Pomerantz wrote: “I have worked too hard as a lawyer, and for too long, now to become a passive participant in what I believe to be a grave failure of justice.”Trump, he now writes, “seemed always to stay one step ahead of the law”. That may conjure up images of Road Runner and Wile E Coyote but Pomerantz is serious. “In my career as a lawyer, I had encountered only one other person who touched all of these bases: John Gotti, the head of the Gambino organised crime family.”The Goodfellas vibe is integral to Trumpworld. In The Devil’s Bargain, way back in 2017, Joshua Green narrated how Trump tore into Paul Manafort, his then campaign manager, shouting: “You treat me like a baby! Am I like a baby to you … Am I a fucking baby, Paul?” It was if Trump was channeling Joe Pesci.With the benefit of hindsight, Pomerantz concludes that the US justice department is better suited to handle a wholesale financial investigation of Trump than the Manhattan DA. Then again, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, has a lot on his plate. An insurrection is plenty.Pomerantz’s book has evoked strong reactions. Trump is enraged, of course. On Truth Social, he wrote: “Crooked Hillary Clinton’s lawyer [Pomerantz says he has never met her], radically deranged Mark Pomerantz, led the fake investigation into me and my business at the Manhattan DA’s Office and quit because DA Bragg, rightfully, wanted to drop the ‘weak’ and ‘fatally flawed’ case. This is disgraceful conduct by Pomerantz, especially since, as always, I’ve done nothing wrong!”Really?In December, a Manhattan jury convicted the Trump Organization on 17 counts of tax fraud and the judge imposed a $1.6m fine. Alan Weisselberg pleaded guilty and testified against his employer. Trump and three of his children – Ivanka, Don Jr and Eric – are defendants in a $250m civil lawsuit brought by Letitia James, the New York attorney general, on fraud-related charges. That case comes to trial in October 2023, months before the presidential primary. Sooner than that will be the E Jean Carroll trial, over alleged defamation and a rape claim Trump denies.Significantly, state prosecutors say Pomerantz may have crossed an ethical line.“By writing and releasing a book in the midst of an ongoing case, the author is upending the norms and ethics of prosecutorial conduct and is potentially in violation of New York criminal law,” J Anthony Jordan, president of the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, announced.Never Give an Inch review: Mike Pompeo as ‘heat-seeking missile for Trump’s ass’Read moreBragg accused Pomerantz of violating a confidentiality agreement. Pomerantz is unbowed. “I am comfortable that this book will not prejudice any investigation or prosecution of Donald Trump,” he states on the page. No formal ethics complaint has appeared.Pomerantz also offers a window on personalities that crossed his path. Cohen receives ample attention. Pomerantz lauds Trump’s former fixer for his cooperation but reiterates that Cohen pleaded guilty to perjury.His conduct left Pomerantz shaking his head. Cohen’s liking for publicity could be unsettling. So was his Oval Office tête-a-tête with Trump over the payment to Daniels. Pomerantz was disgusted. Trump and Cohen, he writes, defiled America’s Holy of Holies, its “sanctum sanctorum”.No harm, no foul. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, announced: “Mr Cohen will continue to cooperate with DA Bragg and his team, speaking truth to power – as he has always done.” On Wednesday, Cohen met the Manhattan DA for the 15th time. Pomerantz is gone. The show goes on.
      People vs Donald Trump: An Inside Account is published in the US by Simon & Schuster
      TopicsBooksDonald TrumpUS politicsUS taxationRepublicansPolitics booksLaw (US)reviewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump porn star payment a ‘zombie case’ that wouldn’t die, ex-prosecutor says in book

      by

      Trump porn star payment a ‘zombie case’ that wouldn’t die, ex-prosecutor says in bookMark Pomerantz writes of frustration of attempt to make hush money to Stormy Daniels a money-laundering case Donald Trump’s hush money payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels is a “zombie case” that keeps coming back from the dead, a former New York prosecutor writes in a new book published as his former office once again considers filing criminal charges against the former president over the matter.Prosecutors likened Trump to mob boss and had to prove he wasn’t insane – bookRead morePeople vs Donald Trump: An Inside Account, will be published in the US on Tuesday. It has been extensively reported. The Guardian received a copy.Mark Pomerantz’s book has proved controversial, not least because it arrives as the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, continues to investigate Trump, empaneling a grand jury hearing evidence about the Daniels payment. Bragg and Pomerantz, who fell out over the investigation of Trump, have exchanged broadsides in the media.On the page, Pomerantz lists numerous matters on which he says New York prosecutors considered charging Trump, including his tax affairs, his relationships with financial institutions including Deutsche Bank and Ladder Capital, property deals in Washington and Chicago, and leases at Trump Tower in Manhattan.But he says the Daniels payment came to seem a viable way to take Trump on.Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, claims to have had an affair with Trump in 2006. He denies it, but in 2016, as he ran for president, his then lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, paid Daniels $130,000 to stay quiet.News of the payment broke in early 2018, when Trump was president. Trump was revealed to have reimbursed Cohen for the payment but only Cohen paid a legal price, his breach of election finance law contributing to a three-year prison sentence. Trump has never been charged.In his book, Pomerantz writes that he came to view the payment as a potential money-laundering offence.“If Clifford had gotten money by threatening to tell the world that she had slept with Donald Trump,” he writes, “that sounded like extortion to me. And if it was extortion, then maybe the hush money she received could be regarded as criminal proceeds, so action taken to conceal Trump’s identity as the source of the money was chargeable as money laundering.”This, Pomerantz writes, was “a new idea, and I got enthusiastic about it”. He shared his ideas with other investigators, he says, and “the return to life of the hush money facts as a potential basis for prosecution sparked a nickname for this part of the investigation … the ‘zombie’ case, because it was alive, and then it was dead, and now it had sprung back to life”.Pomerantz writes that he thought the “zombie case” was “very strong”, as the basic facts were “readily provable”. He describes Cohen’s willing cooperation and evidence that Trump directed Cohen to lie about the payment in the Oval Office itself.In late February 2021, Pomerantz says, he sent a memo to the New York district attorney, then Cy Vance Jr, outlining the “zombie case” and its vital contention that the $130,000 Cohen paid Daniels was “‘dirty money’, or the proceeds of a crime”.He admits he was presenting “a somewhat awkward construct”, in part as he would have to prove Trump was a victim of blackmail.Cohen’s description of Trump’s reaction to Daniels’s claims helped. Pomerantz writes: “I asked what words did they use, and his answer was that Trump referred to it as ‘fucking blackmail’. That was more than sufficient for my purposes.”But Pomerantz says his “creative theorising smacked into [the New York district attorney’s] cautious and conservative culture”. Other investigators “balked” at his extortion theory, he writes, partially because it would be hard to prove Daniels had physically threatened Trump, as necessary under New York law.Pomerantz then focused on Daniels’s lawyer and extracting information from federal prosecutors in New York. But he said he came upon “a new legal problem” which returned the “zombie case” to its grave.Under New York law, he writes, the money Daniels received “had to qualify as ‘criminal proceeds’ when Cohen sent it; otherwise sending was not money laundering. If the money became criminal proceeds only when received, the crime of money laundering had not taken place.”And so the “zombie case” was dead again.Pomerantz describes a brief flutter back to life, when he and colleagues were “contemplating an indictment that featured false business records … which would bring the ‘zombie’ theory back from the dead once again”.But Bragg, who succeeded Vance as Manhattan district attorney, became a lightning rod for liberals when he was reported to have backed away from indicting Trump on any charge. Pomerantz resigned in February 2022, accusing Bragg of acting “contrary to the public interest”.On Sunday, discussing Trump’s tax affairs, Pomerantz told CBS: “If you take the exact same conduct, and make it not about Donald Trump and not about a former president of the United States, would the case have been indicted? It would have been indicted in a flat second.”Pomerantz also called Bragg’s decision not to indict Trump a “grave failure of justice”.Bragg told the New York Times Pomerantz “decided to quit a year ago and sign a book deal”.“I haven’t read the book and won’t comment on any ongoing investigation because of the harm it could cause to the case,” Bragg said.Bragg did secure a conviction against the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg, on tax charges. Not long after that, the investigation of the Daniels payment was reported to be ongoing.Trump complained about “a continuation of the Greatest Witch Hunt of all time”.But Pomerantz’s “zombie” case has bounced back from the grave once again.In his book, Pomerantz says that if the hush money case is the only one the New York DA pursues against Trump, it will be “a very peculiar and unsatisfying end to this whole saga”, given that “persistent fraud … permeated [Trump’s] financial statements”.“That case involves serious criminal misconduct, [but] it pales in comparison to the financial statement fraud.”TopicsBooksDonald TrumpPolitics booksUS politicsUS crimeMichael CohenStormy DanielsnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Prosecutors likened Trump to mob boss and had to prove he wasn’t insane – book

      by

      Prosecutors likened Trump to mob boss and had to prove he wasn’t insane – bookMark Pomerantz, who was on New York team investigating tax affairs, reportedly compares ex-president to John Gotti New York prosecutors building a case against Donald Trump for allegedly lying about his wealth for tax purposes had to show the former president was “not legally insane”, one of those prosecutors reportedly writes in an eagerly awaited new book.Why prosecutors might get Trump – and not Biden – for classified documentsRead moreThe lawyer, Mark Pomerantz, also reportedly compares Trump, the only confirmed candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, to famous figures in the world of organised crime including John Gotti, the “Teflon Don” who died in prison in 2002.In messages seen by the Guardian on Friday, one former Trump administration official called the comparison “unfair to the late Mr Gotti”.Pomerantz was part of attempts by the Manhattan district attorney’s office to build a case against Trump, but quit in February 2022 as the DA, Alvin Bragg, decided not to indict.Pomerantz is now the author of The People vs Donald Trump: An Inside Account, due to be published in the US on Tuesday. The book has angered Bragg, who is still investigating Trump, and the former president, who has threatened to sue.News outlets obtained the book on Friday. The Daily Beast reported Pomerantz’s words about Trump and insanity.“To rebut the claim that Trump believed his own ‘hype’,” Pomerantz writes, the Beast says, “we would have to show, and stress, that Donald Trump was not legally insane.“Was Donald Trump suffering from some sort of mental condition that made it impossible for him to distinguish between fact and fiction?”According to the Beast, Pomerantz writes that lawyers “discussed whether Trump had been spewing bullshit for so many years about so many things that he could no longer process the difference between bullshit and reality”.The New York Times also obtained the book. It reported that Pomerantz says Trump rose to fame and power “through a pattern of criminal activity”.“He demanded absolute loyalty and would go after anyone who crossed him,” Pomerantz reportedly writes. “He seemed always to stay one step ahead of the law. In my career as a lawyer, I had encountered only one other person who touched all of these bases: John Gotti, the head of the Gambino organised crime family.”A lawyer for Trump, Joe Tacopina, told the Times: “Injecting the name John Gotti into this seems like just another desperate attempt by Pomerantz to sell books.”Pomerantz reportedly writes that he considered a racketeering case under New York laws used against mobsters, an idea eventually dropped as too ambitious.Bragg has recently revived the investigation of Trump’s role in a 2016 hush money payment to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, who claims an affair with Trump that the ex-president denies.The Manhattan DA is reportedly seeking cooperation from Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization chief financial officer recently given a five-month jail sentence for tax offences.Trump faces legal jeopardy on numerous other fronts, from his attempts to overturn the 2020 election to his retention of classified documents and a rape allegation by the writer E Jean Carroll, a claim Trump denies. The former president also faces an ongoing civil suit over his financial practices brought by the New York state attorney general, Letitia James.On Friday, Bragg told the Times: “Our skilled and professional legal team continues to follow the facts of this case wherever they may lead, without fear or favor.“Mr Pomerantz decided to quit a year ago and sign a book deal. I haven’t read the book and won’t comment on any ongoing investigation because of the harm it could cause to the case.”Pomerantz denies prejudicing investigations of Trump. According to the Beast, he writes that when he was on the team, prosecutors “had a case, but it was not without issues, and certainly could not be described as a slam dunk”.He also reportedly describes disagreements within Bragg’s team about how to proceed.“It was frustrating to feel like we were about to march into battle and were strapping on our guns and equipment, but when we looked around at the rest of the platoon we saw a lot of conscientious objectors,” Pomerantz reportedly writes.The Times said: “The book’s description of conversations between Mr Pomerantz and Mr Bragg’s team could arguably complicate the investigation. In particular, Mr Pomerantz detailed Mr Bragg’s opposition to using Michael D Cohen, a longtime fixer for Mr Trump who turned on the former president, as a witness, an awkward disclosure now that Mr Cohen may become one of Mr Bragg’s star witnesses.”Cohen was jailed for offences including the payment to Daniels. He said this week he had once again given his phones to investigators.In his book, the Times said, Pomerantz calls Bragg’s investigation “the legal equivalent of a plane crash”, caused by “pilot error”.On Friday, Bragg told the Times: “Mr Pomerantz’s plane wasn’t ready for takeoff.”TopicsBooksDonald TrumpUS politicsUS taxationUS crimeOrganised crimePolitics booksnewsReuse this content More