More stories

  • in

    Trump threatens to invoke Insurrection Act as Bondi faces Senate – US politics live

    Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of US politics as Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy more troops into Democrat-led cities.“We have an insurrection act for a reason. If I had to enact it I would do that,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, adding, “if people were being killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure I would do that.”It came after a federal judge in Oregon temporarily halted a National Guard deployment in Portland although troops from Texas could be deployed in Chicago as soon as today despite a lawsuit from Illinois against the move.Meanwhile, Pam Bondi is likely to grilled over troop deployments as she faces the Senate judiciary committee. The attorney general is also likely to face questions over the indictment last month of the former FBI director James Comey, deadly strikes on boats believed to be carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela, as well as the brewing controversy over the release of documents related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.Trump is also due to welcome the Canadian PM, Mark Carney, to the White House with trade talks expected to be the main focus of discussions.Later, he will meet American-Israeli former hostage Edan Alexander as the world marks the two-year anniversary of the 7 October attacks. In Egypt, indirect talks are taking place between Israel and Hamas over Trump’s 20-point plan for Gaza.And, of course, this all comes amid the backdrop of the ongoing government shutdown, now entering its second week. Stay with us for all the latest developments.In other news:

    A career federal prosecutor in Virginia has told colleagues she does not believe there is probable cause to file criminal mortgage fraud charges against New York attorney general Letitia James, according to a person familiar with the matter. The prosecutor, Elizabeth Yusi, oversees major criminal cases in the Norfolk office for the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia and plans to soon present her conclusion to Lindsey Halligan, a Trump ally, who was installed as the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia last month.

    The US supreme court has declined to hear an appeal from Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell of her sex trafficking conviction. Maxwell in 2022 was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking and related crimes.

    The Trump administration said that funds from a US government program that subsidizes commercial air service to rural airports are set to expire as soon as Sunday because of the government shutdown.

    Jimmy Kimmel emerged as more popular than Donald Trump after a spat with the president’s administration temporarily left the talkshow host off the air in September, according to a recent poll.

    Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has urged Donald Trump to scrap tariffs on his country’s imports and sanctions against its officials, as the two men held what the Brazilian presidency called a “friendly” video call. More

  • in

    Every American should read this judge’s stirring rebuke to Trump | Austin Sarat

    Democracy requires that we do more than look out for our own interests and defend our own rights. Ever since the birth of this nation, its citizens and leaders have echoed Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that “we must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”In Donald Trump’s America, hanging separately seems to be the order of the day. This seems especially true when it comes to his treatment of this country’s millions of non-citizen residents.From the start of his political career, demonizing immigrants has been Trump’s stock in trade. Since his return to office, he has been unusually aggressive in his campaign to round up, detain and deport people whose citizenship status is questionable, and, in some cases, citizens have been caught up in the dragnet.The administration has repeatedly violated the constitution by targeting people because of how they look or the sound of their accents. It has even singled them out because of what they have said or written.On 30 September, Judge William Young of the United States district court of Massachusetts made clear that when it comes to freedom of speech, the constitution does not distinguish between people born in the United States and those who have come here as immigrants. His decision in American Association of University Professors v Rubio offers both a stirring civics lesson and an unusually personal rebuke against the Trump administration. The court found that the Trump administration had violated the right to free speech in its push to detain and deport pro-Palestinian foreign scholars.In his opinion, the judge went beyond the usual bounds of a judicial decision to note that the president “ignores everything … The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies – all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act”. Young added: “While the President naturally seeks warm cheering and gladsome, welcoming acceptance of his views, in the real world he’ll settle for sullen silence and obedience. What he will not countenance is dissent or disagreement.”The judge also accused the president of “bullying”.Legal purists who might applaud the judge’s reading of the constitution will be offended by seeing that kind of language in a judicial opinion. But what he did helps frame the danger Trump poses to the rights of immigrants in a way that connects them to the rest of us.Bravo, Judge Young.Recall the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and graduate of Columbia University. He was arrested and detained in March for participating in pro-Palestinian protests on the Columbia University campus. He was held for more than a hundred days in Louisiana.As his lawyer said on Democracy Now: “If free speech means anything in this country,” he noted, it means “government agents can’t pick you up off the street and throw you into jail because of what you’ve said.” But that is exactly what the administration did, hoping to make an example out of Khalil and send a chilling message to other immigrants.Or how about Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University graduate student, arrested by masked Ice agents for writing an op-ed calling on Tufts to do something to protect human rights in Gaza? As a Washington Post story notes, “Ozturk had committed no crime, yet her detention was a priority for the new Trump administration. US officials used the immigration system in unprecedented ways to covertly research and detain noncitizen students, relying on an investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security whose work traditionally has focused on crimes such as drug smuggling and human trafficking.”“The effort to deport pro-Palestinian student activists,” the Post reports, “represented the Trump administration’s first major challenge to free-speech norms in the United States.” It had to know that what it was doing violated the First Amendment but went ahead anyway under the pretext that it was acting to prevent or punish terrorist activities.This is not the first time that immigrants have been punished for saying or doing things that an administration labelled dangerous. But since the middle of the 20th century, the supreme court has held that the government cannot deport people because of their views or what they say.At that time, Justice William Douglas explained that “freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country” and that “the utterances made by … [them] were entitled to that protection”. Justice Frank Murphy joined him and stated: “Once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.”Young cited those views in his own opinion. “Noncitizens’ speech rights are,” he said, “identical to those of citizens.” He argued: “Political speech is not, on its own, a facially legitimate reason for expelling persons from this country.”After laying out in great detail all the things the Trump administration has done to violate that principle, including its mistreatment of Khalil and Öztürk, he called out Trump for ignoring the constitution and acting as if “the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech applies to American citizens alone”.Young called the case he was deciding “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court”.Citing the language of the first amendment – “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” – the judge insisted: “‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction” between citizens and non-citizens, “and it is not to be found in our history”, Young wrote.That reference to “our history” suggests that Trump’s treatment of non-citizens is un-American. But Young was not finished.He added: “Triumphalism is the very essence of the Trump brand. Often this is naught but hollow bragging: ‘my perfect administration,’ wearing a red baseball cap in the presidential oval office emblazoned ‘Trump Was Right About Everything,’ or most recently depicting himself as an officer in the First Cavalry Division.”He criticized Trump for his “triumphal, transactional, imperative, bellicose, and coarse” language that “seeks to persuade – not through marshaling data driven evidence, science, or moral suasion, but through power”.Near the end of his opinion, Young quotes former president Ronald Reagan. “Freedom,” Reagan said, “is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people …”Returning to Trump, the judge goes on to say: “I’ve come to believe that President Trump truly understands and appreciates the full import of President Reagan’s inspiring message – yet I fear he has drawn from it a darker, more cynical message … [and that he] believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.”By going beyond the precise issue in this case, the free speech rights of immigrants, and going after Trump, Young’s opinion helps frame threats to the rights of immigrants in a way that connects them to the rest of us. He hopes to rekindle the spirit of Reagan and inspire Americans to prove Trump wrong by showing that they will “stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values”.

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

  • in

    MyPillow founder defamed Smartmatic election tech company, judge rules

    MyPillow founder Mike Lindell defamed the election technology company Smartmatic with false statements that its voting machines helped rig the 2020 presidential election, a federal judge in Minnesota ruled recently.But US district judge Jeffrey Bryan deferred until future proceedings the question of whether Lindell – one of the country’s most prominent propagators of false claims that the 2020 election was a fraud – acted with the “actual malice” that Smartmatic still needs to prove to collect any damages.The judge said there are “genuine fact disputes” as to whether Lindell’s statements were made “with knowledge that they were false or made with reckless disregard to their falsity”. He noted that the defense says Lindell has an “unwavering belief” that his statements were truthful.The statements cited by the judge in his ruling on Friday arose from Lindell’s criticism of the results of the 2020 election in California’s Los Angeles county, which Democratic challenger Joe Biden carried with 71% of the vote over Republican incumbent Donald Trump. The results in LA county helped Biden secure the state’s 55 electoral votes as his electoral college victory sent him to the White House and ended Trump’s first presidency.The county used Smartmatic’s computerized touchscreen ballot-marking devices and was the company’s only customer for the 2020 election. Lindell alleged the machines were rigged to change Trump votes to Biden votes.The judge ruled there were 51 specific times when Lindell falsely claimed – in documentaries he produced and through various media and personal appearances – that Smartmatic interfered with the results.“The court concludes that, based on the record presented, no reasonable trier of fact could find that any of the statements at issue are true,” Bryan wrote.Smartmatic attorney Erik Connolly said they will be seeking “nine-figure damages” from Lindell and MyPillow for “spreading lies” about the company.“Smartmatic did not and could not have rigged the 2020 election,” Connolly said in a statement. “It was impossible, and everything that Mr Lindell said about Smartmatic was false.”Smartmatic has been on a winning streak, having reached settlements in 2024 with two conservative news outlets, including Newsmax and One America News Network. The Florida-based company also still has an active case against Fox News.Lindell also has made similar claims against Dominion Voting Systems. He lost a case involving the Denver-based company in June when a jury ruled that he defamed a former Dominion employee by accusing him of treason. The jury awarded $2.3m in damages.Lindell told the Associated Press shortly after the Smartmatic ruling was filed that he hadn’t seen it – but that it was “the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard”.Lindell went on to call Smartmatic “one of the most corrupt companies in the world”, and he vowed to keep fighting until its voting machines are “melted down and turned into prison bars”. He said he will take his crusade to eliminate voting machines in favor of paper ballots all the way to the US supreme court if he has to.Lindell, known as the “MyPillow guy” for his bedding company, also said he recently re-established residence in Minnesota as a step toward a likely run for governor against the incumbent Democratic governor, Tim Walz. While MyPillow is based in the Minneapolis suburbs, Lindell had been living until recently in Texas.Lindell and MyPillow have faced a number of legal and financial setbacks in recent years, but he won a victory in July when a federal appeals court ruled he did not have to pay a $5m arbitration award to a software engineer who disputed data that Lindell claimed proved China interfered in the 2020 election. The court said the arbitration panel overstepped its authority. More

  • in

    ‘Dangerous abuse of power’: lawmakers sound alarm over Comey indictment

    For Donald Trump, the indictment of former FBI director and longtime foe James Comey was,“justice in America”. Legal observers and lawmakers see something far more troubling.A former Republican appointed to lead the bureau by Barack Obama and kept on by Trump until he fired him in 2017, Comey was indicted Thursday on charges related to allegedly lying to Congress five years ago during a hearing on the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.The charges were filed in the eastern district of Virginia only after Erik Siebert was forced out as US attorney for reportedly finding no grounds to indict Comey. The justice department replaced him with a Trump loyalist with little prosecutorial experience, Lindsey Halligan, and shortly after, a grand jury indicted Comey on one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding.The indictment is the latest sign that the president is making good on his promise “to turn our justice system into a weapon for punishing and silencing his critics”, said Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee.“This kind of interference is a dangerous abuse of power. Our system depends on prosecutors making decisions based on evidence and the law, not on the personal grudges of a politician determined to settle scores,” Warner said.Adam Schiff, the Democratic senator and a former federal prosecutor who played a lead role in Trump’s first impeachment, said on X he had “never witnessed such a blatant abuse of the” justice department, calling it “little more than an arm of the president’s retribution campaign”.In a letter to Pam Bondi, the attorney general, Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee described Siebert’s firing and Comey’s indictment as “the latest steps in President Trump’s efforts to reshape the nation’s leading law enforcement agency into a weapon focused on punishing his enemies”.Top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries said it was “crazy to me” that Trump was pursuing a “malicious prosecution” against Comey, given that the FBI chief’s public revival of an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use days before the 2016 election is seen as playing a role in Trump’s victory.“These charges are going to be dismissed. James Comey will win in court. But what it reflects is a broader attack on the rule of law that should frighten every single American, whether you’re a Democrat, an independent or a Republican,” he said at the Capitol.Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union, said Trump “has yet again proven his disdain for the principles that have actually made America great”.“By undermining the rule of law at each and every turn, threatening individuals who speak out against him, and arresting, investigating, and prosecuting elected officials of the opposition party and others who displease him, the president and his administration have corrupted our system of justice to turn his campaign of retribution into reality,” he said, adding that Trump’s public push to indict Comey amounts to “a grotesque abuse of presidential power”.Eric Swalwell, the Democratic congressman and member of the House judiciary committee, told CNN: “I promise you, when Democrats are in the majority, we are going to look at all of this, and there will be accountability, and bar licenses will be at stake in your local jurisdiction if you are corruptly indicting people where you cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt on.”Norm Eisen, executive chair of pro-democracy group Democracy Defenders Fund, warned the indictment puts “the safety of every American and our national security itself in danger. This indictment has all the hallmarks of a vindictive and meritless prosecution, worthy only of the totalitarian states the United States used to oppose”.“This matters far beyond James Comey. It’s about every citizen’s right to live free from persecution by their own leaders. Criticizing our leaders is a fundamental right, regardless of how much our leaders don’t like it,” he said.Trump has spent the hours since Comey’s indictment was announced insulting him on Truth Social, calling him “One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to” on Thursday night and “A DIRTY COP” on Friday morning.His allies have taken up his argument, if not his tone.“Comey demonstrated complete arrogance and unwillingness to comply with the law,” said Ted Cruz, the Republican senator whose exchange with the former FBI director at a 2020 hearing is the subject of the allegations.Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate judiciary committee, said: “If the facts and the evidence support the finding that Comey lied to Congress and obstructed our work, he ought to be held accountable.”“Say it with me, Democrats: nobody is above the law,” said Mike Davis, a prominent Trump legal defender, echoing a phrase often used by Democrats when Trump and his allies were facing prosecutions before his election victory last year.“We are just getting started today with this indictment,” Davis said. “It’s going to get much worse for the Democrats.” More

  • in

    Judges rule against Trump administration on deporting Guatemalan children and Venezuelans

    The Trump administration has been handed a double defeat by judges in immigration cases, barring the executive branch from deporting a group of Guatemalan children and from slashing protections for many Venezuelans in the US.A federal judge on Thursday ordered the administration to refrain from deporting Guatemalan unaccompanied immigrant children with active immigration cases while a legal challenge plays out.Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee based in Washington DC, kept in place an earlier judicial block on the policy, sharply criticizing the administration’s unproven assertion that the children’s parents wanted them deported.The administration attempted to deport 76 Guatemalan minors being held in US custody in a surprise move in the early morning on 31 August, sparking a lawsuit and emergency hearing that temporarily halted the move.The Department of Justice lawyer Drew Ensign initially said that the children’s parents had requested they be returned home, but the department later withdrew that claim. Reuters published a Guatemalan government report saying that most parents of the roughly 600 Guatemalan children in US custody could not be contacted and of those who could, many did not want their children forced back to the country.Kelly said the justice department’s explanation “crumbled like a house of cards” in light of that report.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the justice department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Kelly said some children were unexpectedly taken from their shelter beds in the middle of the night, driven to the airport and, in some cases, put on planes, leaving them worried and confused. At one shelter in McAllen, Texas, a young girl was so scared that she vomited, Kelly wrote, citing evidence submitted in the case.Immigrant children who arrive at US borders without a parent or guardian are classified as unaccompanied and sent to federal government-run shelters until they can be placed with a family member or foster home, a process outlined in federal law.Meanwhile, late on Wednesday, a federal appeals court rejected an attempt by the Trump administration to set aside a judge’s order holding that it unlawfully rolled back temporary protections from deportation granted to 600,000 Venezuelans living in the US.A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals declined to pause a judge’s 5 September ruling holding that the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, lacked the authority to end the program, known as temporary protected status or TPS.“Vacating and terminating Venezuela’s TPS status threw the future of these Venezuelan citizens into disarray, and exposed them to a substantial risk of wrongful removal, separation from their families, and loss of employment,” the panel said.The justice department has said that if a stay were denied, it might take the case to the US supreme court, which in May put on hold an earlier injunction Chen issued and cleared the way for the administration to end temporary protections for about 348,000 of the Venezuelans at issue.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the DHS, in a statement said the ninth circuit’s ruling “is nothing short of open defiance against the US Supreme Court”. The administration had contended the supreme court’s May decision meant Chen’s latest ruling had to be similarly paused.“Luckily for us, and for all Americans, the Ninth Circuit is not the last stop,” McLaughlin said.TPS is available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. It provides eligible migrants with work authorization and temporary protection from deportation. The program was created in 1991 and extended under Joe Biden to cover about 600,000 Venezuelans and 521,000 Haitians. Noem reversed the extensions, saying they were no longer justified, prompting legal challenges.Chen’s decision had also applied to 521,000 Haitians. The administration did not ask the ninth circuit to put that part of Chen’s ruling on hold as a second judge in New York had already blocked the revocation of the Haitians’ status. More

  • in

    Georgia supreme court ends Fani Willis bid to reverse removal from Trump case

    The Georgia supreme court on Tuesday declined to hear Fani Willis’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling disqualifying the Fulton county prosecutor from prosecuting Donald Trump’s election interference case.In a 4-3 decision, the state’s highest court let stand the lower court order disqualifying Willis from the racketeering and election interference case that initially snagged 19 defendants, including Donald Trump, in 2023.Georgia’s appeals court removed Willis from the case in December 2024, citing the “appearance of impropriety” created by her relationship with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade.The appellate decision in effect established a new standard in Georgia law for removing a prosecutor from a case, which the Georgia supreme court’s decision allows to stand without review.Trump, while president, is protected from state-level prosecutions, but the other remaining defendants are still subject to prosecution. The case will be reassigned by the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, but it is unclear whether Pete Skandalakis, executive director of the council, will be able to find a prosecutor willing to take up the politically fraught, legally complicated case.He said he expected the formal process to begin within a month or so. Skandalakis, a district attorney elected by conservative voters outside of metro Atlanta may simply choose to drop the charges against the remaining 14 defendants, rather than risk the backlash of their constituents and the increasingly vocal and retributive ire of the president. But the primary consideration was a matter of capacity, Skandalakis said.“I have to start looking, today, for a prosecutor to take this case,” Skandalakis said. “You kind of narrow it down to resources – who has the staff – and then you kind of branch out. There are some offices that are too small, that are overrun with cases.”Willis and attorneys for Trump and other defendants did not immediately respond to a request for comment.A grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 loss to Joe Biden in Georgia. The alleged scheme included Trump’s call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, urging him to help find enough votes to beat Biden. Four people have pleaded guilty. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty. More

  • in

    US right capitalizes on fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee in North Carolina

    The random and unprovoked killing of a young woman in North Carolina several weeks ago has become a viral video, a political football, and a powerful rightwing talking point – even as the horror and anger her death has provoked obscures what experts say is a vital story about the failures of the American mental health system.The alleged perpetrator, Decarlos Brown Jr, 34, has a long history of problems with the law and mental health issues. He had been arrested 14 times and served a five-year stint for armed robbery. Brown had also come to believe that there was something alien and malevolent inside him – a “man-made material”, he told people, possibly a computer chip implanted by the government that was fighting him for control of his body.Brown was riding a light rail in Charlotte, North Carolina, last month when he allegedly stood up with a pocket knife, abruptly stabbed a nearby woman, then walked away. The victim, Iryna Zarutska, was a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who worked at a pizza parlor and hoped to become a veterinary assistant. Haunting security-camera footage shows her curled up weakly as she bleeds to death in her restaurant uniform. In a phone call from jail after his arrest, Brown, who reportedly has schizophrenia, told his sister that Zarutska had been trying to read his mind.Initially a tragedy covered by mostly local news outlets, Zarutska’s death has grown in recent days into a cause célèbre on the American right. In more centrist conservative accounts, Zarutska’s killing is a symbol and symptom of a lax criminal justice system that should never have allowed Brown to freely walk the streets. In more inflammatory, far-right discourse, the story of a formerly incarcerated Black man’s killing of a defenseless blond woman has become racist fodder for sinister theories about white persecution and Black criminality.On X, Elon Musk has tweeted or retweeted dozens of posts about the story, many arguing that the media would have covered the story more aggressively if a white person had attacked a Black victim, and contrasting it with the media attention given to cases like that of Daniel Penny, a white man who was arrested in New York in 2023 for killing an unhoused Black man with mental illness on the subway in what he described as self-defense. (He was acquitted in trial.)Viral content online has claimed that Brown targeted Zarutska specifically because she was white, though as of now there is no evidence that he did. Some rightwing accounts have noted with pointed irony that a photo that has circulated of Zarutska appears to show a Black Lives Matter poster in the background. Musk and others have pledged money to a campaign to put up George Floyd-style murals of her across American cities.Outrage has reached the highest levels of the US government. Donald Trump has declared on social media that the “ANIMAL who so violently killed the beautiful young lady from Ukraine, who came to America searching for peace and safety, should be given a ‘Quick’ (there is no doubt!) Trial, and only awarded THE DEATH PENALTY.”View image in fullscreenJD Vance, the vice-president, called Brown a “thug” and noted his lengthy arrest record. “It wasn’t law enforcement that failed,” Vance wrote. “It was weak politicians … who kept letting him out of prison.” Earlier this year Brown was arrested for allegedly making unfounded 911 calls, and released after signing a written promise to reappear in court.Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, has announced federal charges against Brown – despite the strong possibility that Brown is mentally ill and could thereby be deemed not culpable by reason of insanity, and despite the fact that the federal government would not typically become involved in the prosecution of a tragic but random act of local violence.Emmitt Riley, a professor of politics and African American studies at Sewanee, the University of the South, said that Zarutska’s death is an undeniable tragedy but has become politicized in a way with obvious racial overtones.“Donald Trump has a history of calling for the death penalty, in particular for Black and brown people,” he said – most famously in the case of the Central Park Five, a group of teenagers who were imprisoned for the 1989 rape of a woman jogging in New York. Although they were later exonerated, Trump has never apologized.Experts on mental health and criminal justice believe the true story of this case is less sensational than tragic, and indicative of a fraying American mental health system that failed to protect Zarutska in part because it first failed to protect Brown from himself.“When I hear people define this as [solely] a criminal justice problem or lack of being ‘tough on crime,’ I think: ‘Let’s be real. Let’s define the problem as what it is,’” Sheryl Kubiak, the dean of the school of social work at Wayne State University, said. “We have a mental health crisis in this country, and we need to address it with appropriate mental health resources.”Jails, she said, were not created for treating mental illness, nor equipped to do so.Although Brown had a long history of reckless behavior, his mental problems seemed to get worse after he was released from prison in 2020, members of his family have told the news media. He walked around talking to himself and was given to unexpected angry outbursts.Like many people with seeming severe mental illness, Brown was offered treatment but resisted accepting it. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia, his mother told ABC, but refused to take medication. She and other members of the family repeatedly tried to get him help. At one point she asked a hospital to admit him but was told, she said, that the hospital could not “make” a person accept treatment. At another point a mental health facility kept him for in-patient treatment but released him after two weeks.Kubiak and other experts note that cases like Brown’s illustrate two longstanding and overlapping debates about the treatment of mental illness. One concerns “institutionalization”, the treatment of serious mental illness in dedicated institutions segregated from larger society, and the other concerns “involuntary” treatment of those who need treatment but refuse it.In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the United States built large, then state-of-the-art mental hospitals across the country to house and treat patients. But institutionalization fell out of favor in the 1950s and 1960s, due to changing cultural and legal attitudes, advances in medication, and a fear that institutions were overused and risked abuse. Mental health practices instead emphasized treating people within their communities. Civil libertarians also lobbied for the bar for involuntary treatment to be stricter. Many of the hospitals were shuttered.View image in fullscreenYet the government has not properly funded and organized a system to replace the older one, Jeffrey Swanson, a sociologist and professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University, said. Where someone with severe mental health problems might have previously had access to dedicated, long-term treatment facilities, they are now likely to end up in a revolving door of jails, ERs, and psychiatric wards with too many patients and too few beds.“Now we have probably more people with serious mental illnesses on any given day in one of our massive big city jails, like Cook county jail in Chicago or the Los Angeles county jail or Rikers Island [in New York], than we ever had in these asylums,” he said. “And it’s really a scandal.”Some progressives are opposed to involuntary treatment, casting it as a violation of consent. Mental health experts tend to take a more nuanced view, Swanson said, particularly in the case of patients whose illnesses are severe and defined by “anosognosia,” a term that means that someone doesn’t recognize that they are ill.A well-known argument for involuntary treatment, he added, says: “We wouldn’t let our grandmother with Alzheimer’s disease wander around and sleep in the subway just because she doesn’t know that she needs treatment; that’d be inhumane. So why do we tolerate that for young adults with schizophrenia?”His own opinion, he said, is complicated by the inadequacies of the current mental health system. “If you’re going to coerce someone into treatment for their own good, you have to have the system capacity to provide those services. I mean, otherwise, it’s really ironic to say: ‘We’re going to force you into treatment that doesn’t exist. We’re going to force you, but we don’t have a bed for you.’”Zarutska was buried in Charlotte on 27 August. Family members who were also in the US as refugees attended the funeral, but her father, who cannot leave Ukraine due to wartime restrictions, had to watch by video call.The Ukrainian embassy offered to help repatriate her body for burial, according to an uncle who spoke to People, but her family chose to inter her in the US; she had fallen “so much in love with the American dream”, he said.Her death is something “I would wish on no one,” Riley, the professor of political science, said. Yet until the US has better systems for treating mental health, “this will be a repeated cycle.” More

  • in

    The ‘bizarre’ referral of the US housing finance agency chief to oust Lisa Cook

    The head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency embraced a highly unusual process to accuse Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, of committing mortgage fraud, former officials and experts have said. One former high-ranking official called the director’s involvement in a criminal referral “bizarre”.William Pulte, a businessman and major GOP donor whom Donald Trump appointed to head the powerful housing agency earlier this year, has accused Cook of committing mortgage fraud by misrepresenting her homes as a primary residence, potentially securing more favorable mortgage rates. The justice department formally opened a criminal investigation into whether Cook committed fraud and has issued subpoenas related to the transaction. Cook’s lawyers have called the discrepancies a “clerical error” and she has denied any wrongdoing.Trump has used those accusations as the basis to try to fire Cook, who has strongly denied the allegations and is contesting her firing in court. Pulte has also made similar referrals against New York attorney general Letitia James and California senator Adam Schiff, both political rivals of Trump.Investigations into mortgage fraud are usually handled by the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s office of inspector general (OIG), an agency watchdog, staffed with lawyers and agents with an expertise in investigating crimes, including mortgage fraud. The OIG is then the office that typically makes a criminal referral.“It’s very bizarre for Pulte to be the one making a criminal referral himself and it’s not coming from the IG’s office,” said Janell Byrd-Chichester, a former chief of staff at FHFA. “If we thought there might be criminal activity, that would go to the IG for review and a determination and the IG would be making any referral, not the agency.”Three other former officials across the inspector general’s office and FHFA said Pulte’s involvement was unusual.After assuming his position earlier this year, Pulte started an FHFA hotline to report waste, fraud and abuse. The move seemed strange to some in the office of the inspector general, which already has its own hotline to report fraud, according to a person familiar with the matter.“It’s certainly unusual, if not unprecedented, for the director of FHFA to make a single request to the justice department that someone be investigated for alleged mortgage fraud,” said Guy Cecala, the executive chair of Inside Mortgage Finance, an information company and research firm that has covered the mortgage market for more than four decades. “Historically, we haven’t seen a lot of people prosecuted for mortgage fraud in terms of misrepresenting their occupancy on a house.”While the FHFA inspector general would take referrals from FHFA, their investigations were typically walled off from FHFA, former officials said. The separation helped protect the privacy of borrowers and their sensitive mortgage information. The inspector general’s office would typically only pursue cases that resulted in substantial losses to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises that are regulated by FHFA.The extent of the FHFA inspector general’s involvement in Cook’s mortgage is unclear. Also uncertain is whether Pulte requested that officials at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac pull Cook’s loan documents – highly sensitive information – or whether the claims are based entirely on publicly available mortgage information. In Schiff’s case, the OIG appears to have at least requested documents about his home loans, according to the Los Angeles Times.“Your inquiry relates to public statements made by the Director of FHFA. I recommend that you reach out to FHFA’s media shop,” a spokesperson for the FHFA inspector general said in a statement. “FHFA OIG does not comment on the existence or non-existence of investigations conducted by this office.” FHFA did not return a request for comment.Pulte has refused to say why his agency started its inquiry into Cook. There is widespread belief that the decision was politically motivated because Trump wants to remove her from the Federal Reserve board in order to stack it with his appointees.Understanding the origins of Pulte’s inquiry is significant because misrepresenting occupancy on a mortgage application does not appear to be uncommon. Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a Republican, and at least three members of Trump’s cabinet have listed multiple places as their primary residence, but have not faced the kind of scrutiny Cook has.“Issues with Cook’s loan file weren’t caught in some routine audit or the like. No one ever goes back and examines loan applications on performing loans for occupancy fraud; that would entail expenses for no benefit,” Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote in a post on the blog Credit Slips. “Instead, the only way anyone would have noticed a problem with Cook’s loan application is that Pulte, as head of FHFA, directed Fannie or Freddie to pull her application. That is unheard of.”Furthermore, Pulte had referred Cook for a criminal inquiry without presenting bona fide evidence of a crime.“If Cook broke her promise about property use (and that isn’t clear), all that shows is a breach of contract,” Levitin wrote in a separate blog post in August. “For it to be fraud, she would have to have never intended to perform the promise in the first place. Pulte has no evidence whatsoever about Cook’s intent at the time she took out the mortgage. He hasn’t even shown a breach of contract, much less common law fraud, not to speak of a federal criminal law violation.”Observers have said it was also unusual for a loan to attract scrutiny if it was being paid. “This case is unusual because I’m not aware of any actual loss that’s occurred. I’m assuming neither of these mortgages are in default. I’m assuming neither of the mortgages in question are underwater,” Cecala said.After the financial crisis, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began conducting random sampling on performing mortgages to see if there were issues that could put them at risk. But in cases where they found issues, it was rare that they would seek criminal punishment for the borrowers.“Normally in those cases – and again this is just precedent – Fannie and Freddie don’t get involved in the prosecution or even referring it to the justice department,” Cecala said. “They’ll just say, we see a problem with this mortgage and they just require the lender who made the loan to buy the loans back out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities.” More