ReportWire

Tag: abbe lowell

  • Legal groups resist Trump authoritarian moves with pro bono work

    [ad_1]

    As the Trump administration has fired federal employees and top officials for political reasons, blocked millions of dollars Congress appropriated and flouted legal norms, several legal outfits are providing crucial pro bono and other help to many individuals hurt by Donald Trump’s authoritarian actions, say lawyers involved and ex-prosecutors.

    Lowell & Associates, Democracy Defenders Fund and the Washington Litigation Group, are among the leading legal groups with clients battling to get their jobs back, avoid prosecutions, or recoup millions of dollars that have been illegally blocked, say attorneys with the trio and experts.

    Veteran white-collar lawyers, ex-justice department (DoJ) prosecutors and other legal talent at these firms are representing prominent figures Trump’s administration has fired to settle political scores, ex-officials his administration has launched investigations into, and scores of other officials ousted without cause, say lawyers.

    Former DoJ prosecutors credit these smaller legal outfits for challenging administration moves that jeopardize the rule of law

    “The creation of these new entities reflects a broad-based professional revulsion at the ongoing efforts to undermine the rule of law by the Trump administration, including turning the DoJ into an extension of the White House rather than a department that is faithful to the facts and the law,” said ex-DoJ inspector general Michael Bromwich.

    These newer legal outfits in some ways are also helping fill a vacuum created by Trump’s pressure tactics on several major law firms with some Democratic ties which led them to agree to provide hundreds of millions in pro bono help to administration priorities.

    Nine big law firms, including Paul Weiss and Kirkland & Ellis, struck deals with Trump in the first months of his second term to avert an executive order that would have made it very hard for them to represent their clients. In total, they agreed to provide almost $1bn in pro bono help to administration priorities including fighting antisemitism and veterans issues, the New York Times has reported.

    A few lawyers have left these large firms including Skadden Arps and Milbank in recent months to join the smaller legal outfits now challenging Trump administration actions.

    Consider Lowell & Associates which was started this spring by prominent white collar attorney Abbe Lowell and has quickly amassed several very high profile clients suing the Trump administration in cases involving alleged politically motivated firings.

    Lowell, in tandem with an attorney for the FBI Agents Association, filed a major lawsuit on 10 September against the FBI director, Kash Patel, and other senior administration officials on behalf of two ex-senior officials, Brian Driscoll Jr and Steven Jensen, who were canned early this year they alleged in a politically driven purge.

    Separately, Lowell teamed up with Democracy Defenders Fund in August to challenge Trump’s efforts to fire Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook, as Trump sought to exert control over the historically independent Fed.

    Two courts this month ruled against the administration which temporarily blocked Cook’s firing and allowed her to stay in her post for a pivotal Fed meeting on 16 and 17 September; the administration on the 18th appealed its case to the supreme court.

    On another legal front, Democracy Defenders Fund won a major court ruling on behalf of AmeriCorps which it represented as counsel: a district court in July ruled that hundreds of millions of dollars Congress appropriated, but the administration nixed for AmeriCorps, should be restored.

    Meanwhile, the Washington Litigation Group which was launched in August has already been tapped by about a dozen fired DoJ employees for legal help. It was formed by an elite group of veteran DC legal figures including former senior DoJ official Peter Keisler, retired DC judge Ellen Segal Huvelle and well-known white-collar lawyer Tom Green, who serve on an advisory steering committee.

    Legal battles mounted by this trio and others involving attorneys with Democracy Forward and the Alden Law Group have helped spur a major surge in lawsuits against the administration that the New York Times in July pegged at over 400.

    Given the Trump administration’s widespread attacks on the rule of law, the legal battles facing these new firms and their clients are daunting and the dozens of clients they represent vary considerably, say firm leaders.

    “Week after chaotic week, we are seeing an onslaught of authoritarian actions, from dismantling government agencies, to firing public servants who refuse to toe the Maga line, to militarizing the police in Washington DC” said Susan Corke, the executive director of the Democracy Defenders Fund.

    “The foundations of our democracy are being chipped away in real time, and we are facing a congressional majority that refuses to act as a check on executive power. That is why legal pushback is so critical right now. The courts remain one of the last places where truth, accountability, and the rule of law still matter … We are standing up for the principle that no one, not even a president, is above the law.”

    Corke’s points are underscored by the big legal battles that the Fund has been waging.

    In February, for instance, the Fund filed a lawsuit challenging the dismantling of USAID under the appointments clause because of the key role played by multi billionaire Elon Musk and his “department of government efficiency”. The lawsuit is now a class action on behalf of thousands of USAID workers who have lost their jobs.

    The Fund, founded in 2023 by ex-ambassador Norman Eisen who serves as its executive chair, also conducts investigations in matters ranging from Trump’s ties to notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein to the Trump family’s enormously lucrative stakes in cryptocurrency ventures.

    To tackle other major legal battles sparked by Trump administration actions, Lowell created his small eponymous firm after leaving the much larger firm of Winston & Strawn where his high-profile clients included former president Joe Biden’s son Hunter, as well as Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner.

    In a statement when the firm launched, Lowell said its mission would entail defending clients including institutions, individuals and others that are “facing politicized investigations, civil and administrative actions”.

    Lowell’s firm has been on a roll signing up several leading figures who the Trump administration has either fired or tried to oust. Lowell has been representing Susan Monarez, the ex director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who was fired by the White House last month: Monarez told a Senate panel on 17 September that her firing came after health and human services secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, a well-known vaccine sceptic, pressured her unsuccessfully to oust career scientists and pre approve vaccine recommendations for the public.

    In another high-stakes battle, Lowell and Democracy Defenders Fund filed successfully for a temporary restraining order with DC federal court on 2 September to block Trump’s firing of Cook on the grounds that he doesn’t have the authority to do so.

    Another client is the New York attorney general ,Letitia James, who the justice department has been investigating for alleged mortgage fraud which James has denied. Trump has long deemed James a political foe for bringing a successful civil fraud case against Trump’s real estate empire last year with a $500m penalty. The penalty was overturned last month, but Trump and his two eldest sons remain barred from serving in leadership posts for a few years.

    Last month too Lowell was hired to represent former Trump national security adviser John Bolton who became a leading critic of Trump at the end of his first term and wrote a hard hitting book about his tenure after Trump ousted him. The FBI recently raided his home amid allegations of retaining classified records.

    “Any thorough review will show nothing inappropriate was stored or kept by Ambassador Bolton,” Lowell said in a 4 September statement that was the first public response from Bolton’s team related to the substance of the search.

    Lowell’s firm has also teamed up with well-known lawyer Mark Zaid to represent three fired DoJ employees; and Lowell is representing Zaid, who has prominent whistleblower clients and whose security clearance was revoked by Trump.

    Lowell’s small firm is staffed with several veteran attorneys who left Winston & Strawn and Skadden Arps after the latter firm cut a deal with the administration to avoid its crackdown on the legal profession.

    Meanwhile, the even newer Washington Litigation Group is relying on four attorneys to handle its growing volume of cases, said steering committee member and senior counsel Nathaniel Zelinsky.

    The firm’s other lawyers are James Pearce and Mary Dohrmann, who were part of special counsel Jack Smith’s team that brought charges against Trump for election subversion drive after his 2020 election loss and his retention of hundreds of classified documents after he left office, and DoJ veteran Samantha Bateman.

    “In an environment where the executive branch has targeted law firms, the WLG stands ready to provide pro bono representation for those seeking to vindicate the rule of law,” said Pearce.

    The firm has already filed a successful amicus brief on behalf of the Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey challenging Trump’s naming of Alina Habba, an ex-defense lawyer for Trump, to be US attorney for New Jersey after a very brief stint as interim US attorney.

    In late August, a federal judge ruled in their favor declaring that Habba’s appointment was illegal which the government quickly appealed.

    “The president’s efforts to install Alina Habba – like his attempt to purge the civil service of non-partisan public servants–are designed to mold the government into his image and undermine the rule of law,” said Zelinsky.

    The firm has also been representing about a dozen justice department officials and employees who have been fired, often without cause or explanation, since Trump took office again. One such client is Tara Twomey, a career civil servant who was director of the executive office of the US Trustee program at DoJ which oversees bankruptcy cases and private trustees for about two years until her March firing.

    “The legal issue in these cases involving fired DoJ employees is not just limited to them,” said Zelinsky. “The question is whether the President can fire every single employee in the Federal government – down to the person sweeping the floors – in violation of the laws Congress passed ensuring a professional, non-partisan civil service.”

    Former DoJ officials say these newer legal shops are badly needed to counter administration attacks on the rule of law.

    “The DoJ and the FBI are targeting people rather than crimes, and there is a vast need for lawyers to represent individuals and institutions that are under attack by the administration on multiple fronts,” said Bromwich.

    A senior counsel with Steptoe, Bromwich has represented pro bono some clients ousted at DoJ including the former pardon attorney Elizabeth Oyer, who has been battling to get her job back with help from Democracy Defenders Fund and others.

    Similarly, Daniel Richman, a Columbia law professor and ex-federal prosecutor, said: “It’s heartening but not surprising that a number of respected lawyers have put political differences aside to defend the governmental institutions they value and the individual government officials who have fallen victim to the Trump administration’s assaults on those institutions.

    “Any retaliation by the administration against those lawyers or their clients may hurt them economically, but I’d like to think the profession values those with the law on their side who stand up to lawless and often vindictive executive action.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US attorney under pressure to charge Letitia James in mortgage fraud case is resigning: AP sources

    [ad_1]

    A federal prosecutor in Virginia whose monthslong mortgage fraud investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James has not resulted in criminal charges resigned Friday under pressure from the Trump administration.Erik Siebert confirmed his departure in an email to colleagues, reviewed by The Associated Press, in which he praised them as the “finest and most exceptional” of Justice Department employees but made no mention of the political turmoil that preceded his resignation.The replacement of Siebert as U.S. attorney for the prestigious Eastern District of Virginia office comes amid a push by Trump administration officials to indict James, a perceived adversary of the president who has successfully sued him for fraud. President Donald Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday that he wanted Siebert “out” and multiple people familiar with the matter later told the AP that Siebert had informed his colleagues of his plan to resign from the position.The administration’s effort to oust him from the job represents a further erosion of norms meant to insulate the Justice Department from White House influence on prosecutorial decisions. The move is likely to deepen concerns that the department — already investigating other public figures Trump regards as foes — is being weaponized by a White House seeking to have its prosecutorial powers used for purposes of retribution.It was not immediately clear Friday afternoon who would replace Siebert, who was nominated by Trump to the top job in the office this year after having worked there for more than a decade. Siebert’s top deputy, Maya Song, is also leaving her position as first assistant U.S. attorney and will work as a line prosecutor, one of the people familiar with the matter said.Justice Department spokespeople declined to comment.Trump administration officials have been aggressively pursuing allegations against James arising from alleged paperwork discrepancies on her Brooklyn townhouse and a Virginia home. The Justice Department has spent months conducting the investigation but has yet to bring charges, and there’s been no indication that prosecutors have managed to uncover any degree of incriminating evidence that could support bringing an indictment.Asked about the issue at the White House Friday, Trump, without citing any evidence, said, “It looks to me like she’s really guilty of something, but I really don’t know.” Trump also said he was bothered that Siebert had been supported by the state’s two Democratic senators.James’ lawyers have vigorously denied any allegations and characterized the investigation as an act of political revenge.ABC News was first to report that Trump administration officials were pressuring prosecutors to bring charges and that the Republican administration was preparing to oust Siebert.James has long been a particular source of outrage for Trump, in part because of a lawsuit she filed against him and his company that resulted in a massive financial penalty last year. That penalty was thrown out last month by an appeals court that narrowly upheld a judge’s finding that Trump had engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades.The case has taken a series of unorthodox turns. It emerged last month that Ed Martin, who leads the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group and is helping coordinate the investigation, had sent a letter urging James to resign from office “as an act of good faith” after starting his mortgage fraud investigation of her. He later turned up outside James’ Brooklyn townhouse in a “Columbo”-esque trench coat. A New York Post writer at the scene observed him tell a neighbor: “I’m just looking at houses, interesting houses. It’s an important house.”James’ lawyer, Abbe Lowell, told Martin in a letter that the request for James’ resignation defied Justice Department standards and codes of professional responsibility and legal ethics.The Justice Department “has firm policies against using investigations and against using prosecutorial power for achieving political ends,” Lowell wrote. “This is ever more the case when that demand is made to seek political revenge against a public official in the opposite party.”A former District of Columbia police officer, Siebert joined the Eastern District of Virginia, an elite Justice Department prosecution office with a history of sophisticated national security and criminal cases, in 2010. He was nominated to the role of U.S. attorney by Trump this year with the backing of the state’s two Democratic senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine.The office has separately been involved in investigating matters related to the years-old investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, a longstanding grievance of the president. No charges have been announced as part of that work.Although U.S. attorneys are presidential appointees, they are rarely fired. But the Trump administration has repeatedly disregarded norms and traditions meant to protect Justice Department prosecutors from White House political influence.Prosecutors and other support personnel who worked on the special counsel team of Jack Smith that investigated and prosecuted Trump have been fired, as was Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor in New York whose father, former FBI Director James Comey, was terminated by Trump months into his first term amid the Russia election interference investigation.Martin’s investigation stems from a letter Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi in April asking her to investigate and consider prosecuting James, alleging she had “falsified bank documents and property records.”Pulte, whose agency regulates mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cited “media reports” claiming James had falsely listed a Virginia home as her principal residence, and he suggested she may have been trying to avoid higher interest rates that often apply to second homes.Records show James was listed as a co-borrower on a house her niece was buying in 2023. Lowell said records and correspondence easily disproved Pulte’s allegation. While James signed a power-of-attorney form that, Lowell said, “mistakenly stated the property to be Ms. James’ principal residence,” she sent an email to her mortgage loan broker around the same time that made clear the property “WILL NOT be my primary residence.”____ Associated Press writer Michael R. Sisak in New York contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    A federal prosecutor in Virginia whose monthslong mortgage fraud investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James has not resulted in criminal charges resigned Friday under pressure from the Trump administration.

    Erik Siebert confirmed his departure in an email to colleagues, reviewed by The Associated Press, in which he praised them as the “finest and most exceptional” of Justice Department employees but made no mention of the political turmoil that preceded his resignation.

    The replacement of Siebert as U.S. attorney for the prestigious Eastern District of Virginia office comes amid a push by Trump administration officials to indict James, a perceived adversary of the president who has successfully sued him for fraud. President Donald Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday that he wanted Siebert “out” and multiple people familiar with the matter later told the AP that Siebert had informed his colleagues of his plan to resign from the position.

    The administration’s effort to oust him from the job represents a further erosion of norms meant to insulate the Justice Department from White House influence on prosecutorial decisions. The move is likely to deepen concerns that the department — already investigating other public figures Trump regards as foes — is being weaponized by a White House seeking to have its prosecutorial powers used for purposes of retribution.

    It was not immediately clear Friday afternoon who would replace Siebert, who was nominated by Trump to the top job in the office this year after having worked there for more than a decade. Siebert’s top deputy, Maya Song, is also leaving her position as first assistant U.S. attorney and will work as a line prosecutor, one of the people familiar with the matter said.

    Justice Department spokespeople declined to comment.

    Trump administration officials have been aggressively pursuing allegations against James arising from alleged paperwork discrepancies on her Brooklyn townhouse and a Virginia home. The Justice Department has spent months conducting the investigation but has yet to bring charges, and there’s been no indication that prosecutors have managed to uncover any degree of incriminating evidence that could support bringing an indictment.

    Asked about the issue at the White House Friday, Trump, without citing any evidence, said, “It looks to me like she’s really guilty of something, but I really don’t know.” Trump also said he was bothered that Siebert had been supported by the state’s two Democratic senators.

    James’ lawyers have vigorously denied any allegations and characterized the investigation as an act of political revenge.

    ABC News was first to report that Trump administration officials were pressuring prosecutors to bring charges and that the Republican administration was preparing to oust Siebert.

    James has long been a particular source of outrage for Trump, in part because of a lawsuit she filed against him and his company that resulted in a massive financial penalty last year. That penalty was thrown out last month by an appeals court that narrowly upheld a judge’s finding that Trump had engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades.

    The case has taken a series of unorthodox turns. It emerged last month that Ed Martin, who leads the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group and is helping coordinate the investigation, had sent a letter urging James to resign from office “as an act of good faith” after starting his mortgage fraud investigation of her. He later turned up outside James’ Brooklyn townhouse in a “Columbo”-esque trench coat. A New York Post writer at the scene observed him tell a neighbor: “I’m just looking at houses, interesting houses. It’s an important house.”

    James’ lawyer, Abbe Lowell, told Martin in a letter that the request for James’ resignation defied Justice Department standards and codes of professional responsibility and legal ethics.

    The Justice Department “has firm policies against using investigations and against using prosecutorial power for achieving political ends,” Lowell wrote. “This is ever more the case when that demand is made to seek political revenge against a public official in the opposite party.”

    A former District of Columbia police officer, Siebert joined the Eastern District of Virginia, an elite Justice Department prosecution office with a history of sophisticated national security and criminal cases, in 2010. He was nominated to the role of U.S. attorney by Trump this year with the backing of the state’s two Democratic senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine.

    The office has separately been involved in investigating matters related to the years-old investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, a longstanding grievance of the president. No charges have been announced as part of that work.

    Although U.S. attorneys are presidential appointees, they are rarely fired. But the Trump administration has repeatedly disregarded norms and traditions meant to protect Justice Department prosecutors from White House political influence.

    Prosecutors and other support personnel who worked on the special counsel team of Jack Smith that investigated and prosecuted Trump have been fired, as was Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor in New York whose father, former FBI Director James Comey, was terminated by Trump months into his first term amid the Russia election interference investigation.

    Martin’s investigation stems from a letter Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi in April asking her to investigate and consider prosecuting James, alleging she had “falsified bank documents and property records.”

    Pulte, whose agency regulates mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cited “media reports” claiming James had falsely listed a Virginia home as her principal residence, and he suggested she may have been trying to avoid higher interest rates that often apply to second homes.

    Records show James was listed as a co-borrower on a house her niece was buying in 2023. Lowell said records and correspondence easily disproved Pulte’s allegation. While James signed a power-of-attorney form that, Lowell said, “mistakenly stated the property to be Ms. James’ principal residence,” she sent an email to her mortgage loan broker around the same time that made clear the property “WILL NOT be my primary residence.”

    ____

    Associated Press writer Michael R. Sisak in New York contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook from the Fed: What to know

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump is seeking to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, citing allegations surrounding mortgage forms she filed before she became a Fed governor.

    The Federal Reserve is arguably the most important player in shaping the economy in the U.S. — and possibly the world. In his second term, Trump has consistently attacked the institution and its chair, Jerome Powell, for failing to lower interest rates as fast as he wants. 

    But the Fed was established to be independent of political influence, and the effort by Trump to fire Cook represents a breach of historical norms — and possibly the law. Cook was nominated by President Joe Biden and is the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor. Her term runs until 2038, and she has said she is not resigning.

    Here’s some background on the legal dispute and what it may entail.

    How are Fed board members chosen and how long do they serve?

    The Fed is headed by seven governors nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The president selects and the Senate confirms a chair and two vice chairs from among the governors. These governors serve nonrenewable 14-year terms, while the chair and vice chairs serve renewable four-year terms. 

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    The Fed’s most closely watched power comes from monetary policy decisions, which are determined by the Federal Open Market Committee. This committee, which meets at least every six weeks, includes the seven governors, the president of the New York Fed, and four presidents of the remaining 11 regional banks, who rotate on and off the committee.

    This structure means that Cook is one of the committee’s seven permanent members. One position is currently vacant, following Biden appointee Adriana Kugler’s Aug. 8 resignation. Trump nominated White House Council of Economic Advisers chair Stephen Miran to succeed Kugler, which will require Senate confirmation. Cook, if she is forced out, would offer Trump a second governor vacancy to fill.

    During his first term, Trump appointed Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller as Fed governors. He also initially appointed Powell as chair, before becoming disenchanted with him.

    What has Trump done to try to oust Cook?

    After increasing rhetoric against Cook, Trump on Aug. 25 released a letter in which he said he was immediately dismissing Cook on Truth Social. 

    Trump cited a “criminal referral” from Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte, a Trump appointee, relating to mortgage fraud. Pulte and Trump allege that Cook falsely attested on loan forms that homes in both Atlanta and Ann Arbor, Michigan, qualified as her primary residence, potentially allowing her to secure a lower interest rate.

    “The Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve and member banks,” Trump wrote. “The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve. In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”

    Cook said the firing was unsupported by the law.

    “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” her statement said. “I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.”

    On Aug. 26, her lawyer, Abbe Lowell, announced that Cook would sue to block her firing.

    The same day, the Fed said through a spokesperson that “Cook has indicated through her personal attorney that she will promptly challenge this action in court and seek a judicial decision that would confirm her ability to continue to fulfill her responsibilities as a Senate-confirmed member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.”

    How can a Fed governor be removed?

    The Federal Reserve Act says governors can be removed from their position only “for cause.” The interpretation of this phrase will be central to the legal fight over Cook’s status.

    “‘For cause’ generally means inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” said Daniel Farber, a University of California-Berkeley law professor. “Arguably, none of those apply since the conduct took place before Cook was in office. But legal precedent is scanty.”

    In addition, Trump’s decision to fire Cook rests on “allegations from one of his loyalists,” rather than a conviction, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor.

    Trump may not need a conviction, which could take more than a year to play out, said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor. But Bowman said something more than an allegation ought to be necessary.

    “Unless judges are willing to impose some minimal process, some standard of misconduct seriousness, and some evidentiary standard, the ‘for cause’ requirement becomes illusory,” Bowman said. 

    Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to weigh in on the question eventually. Under Trump, the court has been deferential to the president’s ability to fire federal officials, even those that had previously been assumed to be safe from such ousters.

    However, in a May procedural decision, a majority allowed Trump to proceed in removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board — but specifically noted that the Federal Reserve is a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” that fell outside the bounds of its decision to green-light Trump’s firings elsewhere.

    If Cook’s case reaches the high court, Farber said, “the odds favor her, but I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk case.”

    Why is this dispute important?

    Trump wants the Fed to lower interest rates, which could encourage investment and home purchases.

    However, some economists say this would be risky — not only because inflation hasn’t fully returned to the Fed’s target 2% rate since spiking to around 9% in 2022, but also because Trump’s aggressive tariff policy could drive prices higher. The Fed was designed with political insulation, because higher rates to keep inflation low may not be popular with the president or other elected officials.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden enters surprise guilty plea to avoid tax trial months after his gun conviction

    Hunter Biden enters surprise guilty plea to avoid tax trial months after his gun conviction

    [ad_1]

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, pleaded guilty Thursday to federal tax charges, a surprise move meant to spare his family another painful and embarrassing criminal trial after his gun case conviction just months ago.

    Hunter Biden’s decision to plead guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges without the benefits of a deal with prosecutors caps a long-running saga over his legal woes that have cast a shadow over his father’s political career. It came hours after jury selection was supposed to begin in the case accusing him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes.

    The president’s son was already facing potential prison time after his June conviction on felony gun charges in a trial that aired unflattering and salacious details about his struggles with a crack cocaine addiction. The tax trial was expected to showcase more potentially lurid evidence as well as details about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, which Republicans have seized on to try to paint the Biden family as corrupt.

    “I will not subject my family to more pain, more invasions of privacy and needless embarrassment,” Hunter Biden said in an emailed statement after he entered his plea. “For all I have put them through over the years, I can spare them this, and so I have decided to plead guilty.”

    Although President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential election muted the potential political implications of the tax case, the trial was expected to carry a heavy emotional toll for the president in the final months of his five-decade political career.

    “Hunter put his family first today, and it was a brave and loving thing for him to do,” defense attorney Abbe Lowell told reporters outside the federal courthouse in Los Angeles.

    Hunter Biden, 54, quickly responded “guilty” as the judge read out each of the nine counts. He showed no emotion as he walked out the courthouse holding his wife’s hand. He ignored questions shouted at him by reporters before climbing into an SUV and driving off.

    The charges carry up to 17 years behind bars, but federal sentencing guidelines are likely to call for a much shorter sentence. He faces up to $1.35 million in fines. Sentencing is set for Dec. 16 in front of U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, who was nominated to the bench by former President Donald Trump.

    He faces sentencing in the Delaware case on Nov. 13 — the week after the general election. Those charges are punishable by up to 25 years in prison, though he is likely to get far less time or avoid prison entirely.

    More than 100 potential jurors had been brought to the courthouse Thursday to begin the process of picking the panel to hear the case alleging a four-year scheme to avoid paying taxes while spending wildly on things like strippers, luxury hotels and exotic cars.

    Prosecutors were caught off guard when Hunter Biden’s lawyer told the judge Thursday morning that Hunter wanted to enter what’s known as an Alford plea, under which a defendant maintains their innocence but acknowledges prosecutors have enough evidence to secure a conviction.

    Special counsel David Weiss’ team objected to such a plea, telling the judge that Hunter Biden “is not entitled to plead guilty on special terms that apply only to him.”

    “Hunter Biden is not innocent. Hunter Biden is guilty,” prosecutor Leo Wise said.

    After a break in the hearing, Hunter Biden’s lawyers said he had decided to plead guilty to all nine charges.

    Last year, it had looked like he was going to be spared prison time under a deal with prosecutors that would have allowed him to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses. Prosecutors would have recommended two years of probation and he would have escaped prosecution on a felony gun charge as long he stayed out of trouble for two years.

    But the agreement imploded after a judge questioned unusual aspects of it, and Hunter Biden was subsequently indicted in the two cases. The defense has accused special counsel Weiss of caving to political pressure to indict the president’s son after Trump and other Republicans blasted what they described as a “sweetheart deal.”

    The indictment brought last year grew out of an investigation into Hunter Biden’s taxes that began in 2018 under the Trump administration. Hunter Biden confirmed the existence of the investigation in December 2020 — the month after his father won the election — saying he learned about it for the first time the previous day.

    Prosecutors alleged that Hunter Biden lived lavishly while flouting the tax law, spending his cash on things like strippers and luxury hotels — “in short, everything but his taxes.”

    The charges in both the gun and tax cases stemmed from a period in Hunter Biden’s life in which he struggled with drug and alcohol abuse before becoming sober in 2019. His lawyers had been expected to argue that his substance abuse struggles affected his decision-making and judgment, so he could not have acted “willfully,” or with intention to break the tax law.

    “As I have stated, addiction is not an excuse, but it is an explanation for some of my failures at issue in this case,” Hunter Biden said in a statement. “When I was addicted, I wasn’t thinking about my taxes, I was thinking about surviving. But the jury would never have heard that or know that I had paid every penny of my back taxes including penalties.”

    His decision to plead guilty came after the judge issued some unfavorable pre-trial rulings for the defense, including rejecting a proposed defense expert lined up to testify about addiction. Scarsi had also placed some restrictions on what jurors would be allowed to hear about the traumatic events that Hunter Biden’s family, friends and attorneys say led to his drug addiction.

    Hunter Biden’s attorneys had asked Scarsi to also limit prosecutors from highlighting details of his expenses that they say amount to a “character assassination,” including payments made to strippers or pornographic websites.

    Prosecutors had also planned to introduce evidence about Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings, including his work for a Romanian businessman who prosecutors said in court papers sought to “influence U.S. government policy” while Joe Biden was vice president.

    ___

    Lauer reported from Philadelphia. AP writer Zeke Miller contributed from Washington.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Back from France, the first lady attends Hunter Biden’s gun trial as prosecution wraps up

    Back from France, the first lady attends Hunter Biden’s gun trial as prosecution wraps up

    [ad_1]

    WILMINGTON, Del. – Federal prosecutors aimed to wrap up their gun case against Hunter Biden on Friday with two final witnesses in their effort to prove that the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun purchase form when he said he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

    Prosecutors called an FBI forensic chemist, Jason Brewer, who tested a residue found on the leather pouch that contained Hunter Biden’s gun. It came back positive for cocaine, though the amount was minimal, he told jurors. His testimony is capping a week that has been largely dedicated to highlighting the seriousness of Hunter Biden’s drug problem through highly personal and often revealing testimony.

    Jurors heard Thursday from Hunter Biden’s his ex-wife and a former girlfriend who testified about his habitual crack use and their failed efforts to help him get clean. They saw images of the president’s son bare-chested and disheveled in a filthy room, and half-naked holding crack pipes. And they watched video of his crack cocaine weighed on a scale.

    Prosecutor say the evidence is necessary to prove that Hunter, 54, was in the throes of addiction when he bought the gun and therefore lied when he checked “no” on the form that asked whether he was “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” drugs.

    His attorney, Abbe Lowell, has argued Hunter did not think of himself as an “addict” when he bought the gun and did not intend to deceive anyone.

    Meanwhile, President Joe Biden worked to walk the line between president and father, telling ABC in an interview that he would accept the jury’s verdict and ruling out a pardon for his son. Earlier this week, he issued a statement saying: “I am the President, but I am also a Dad. Jill and I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today.”

    Biden is in France this week for D-Day anniversary events. First lady Jill Biden, who attended court most of the week, flew from France Thursday to be at the trial again Friday before she will return to France for a state dinner.

    Hunter Biden been charged with three felonies: lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.

    He has pleaded not guilty. He had hoped to resolve the gun case and another separate tax case in California with a plea deal last year, the result of a yearslong investigation into his business dealings. The deal had him pleading guilty to lower-level charges that would have resolved both cases and spared him the spectacle of a trial so close to the 2024 election. It fell apart after Judge Maryellen Noreika questioned unusual aspects of the proposed agreement and the lawyers couldn’t resolve them.

    Hunter Biden said he got charged because the Justice Department bowed to pressure from Republicans who argued the Democratic president’s son was getting special treatment, and who have escalated their attacks on the criminal justice system since Donald Trump’s recent conviction in New York City in a hush money case.

    Lowell said he would call the president’s brother James as a witness, but it’s unclear yet whether Hunter Biden will testify.

    But jurors have already heard his voice. Prosecutors have played lengthy audio excerpts in court of his 2021 memoir “Beautiful Things,” in which he writes about his lifelong addiction issues and spiraling descent after death of his brother Beau in 2015. The book, written after he got sober, covers the period he had the gun but doesn’t mention it specifically.

    Lowell has said Hunter Biden’s state of mind was different when he wrote the book than when he purchased the gun, when he didn’t believe he had an addiction. He pointed out to jurors that some of the questions on the firearms transaction record are in the present tense, such as “are you an unlawful user of or addicted to” drugs.

    And he’s suggested Hunter Biden might have felt he had a drinking problem at the time, but not a drug problem. Alcohol abuse doesn’t preclude a gun purchase.

    The reason law enforcement raised any questions about the revolver is because Hallie Biden, Beau’s widow, found it unloaded in Hunter’s truck on Oct. 23, 2018, panicked and tossed it into a garbage can at a nearby market. She testified about the episode Thursday.

    She told jurors she considered hiding the gun but thought her kids might find it, so she decided to throw it away.

    “I realize it was a stupid idea now, but I was panicking,” she said. “I didn’t want him to hurt himself, and I didn’t want my kids to find it and hurt themselves.”

    Hallie Biden, who had a brief romantic relationship with Hunter after Beau died, testified that from the time Hunter returned to Delaware from a 2018 trip to California until she threw his gun away, she did not see him using drugs. That time period included the day he bought the weapon.

    But much of her testimony focused on Oct. 23, 2018 — 11 days after he bought it. Hunter was staying with her and seemed exhausted. Asked by the prosecutor if it appeared that Hunter was using drugs around then, she said, “He could have been.”

    As Hunter slept in her home, Hallie Biden went to check his car. She said she was hoping to help him get or stay sober, free of both alcohol and cocaine. She said she found the remnants of crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia. She also found the gun Hunter purchased in a box with a broken lock that kept it from fully closing. There was ammunition too.

    She put in a leather pouch put the pouch in a bag and tossed it into in the trash can at Janssen’s Market. He noticed it missing and asked her whether she had taken it.

    “Are you insane?” he texted. He told her to go back to the market to look for it.

    Surveillance footage played for jurors showed her digging around in the trash can for the gun, but it wasn’t there. She asked store officials if someone had taken out the trash. Hallie testified Hunter told her to file a police report because the gun was registered in his name. She called the police while she was still at the store.

    Officers located the man who inadvertently took the gun along with other recyclables from the trash and retrieved it. The case was eventually closed because of lack of cooperation from Hunter Biden, who was considered the victim.

    Jurors also heard from the officers who handled the case, from the man who found the gun and from the store clerk who sold Hunter the revolver.

    If convicted, Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison, though first-time offenders do not get anywhere near the maximum, and it’s unclear whether the judge would give him time behind bars.

    He also faces a separate trial in September on charges of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes.

    ___

    This story’s headline has been corrected to show the prosecution, not the defense, has 2 more witnesses.

    ___

    Long reported from Washington.

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of Hunter Biden at https://apnews.com/hub/hunter-biden.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Randall Chase, Michael Kunzelman, Colleen Long And Claudia Lauer, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden not asking for ‘special treatment’ in gun case court appearance, lawyer says

    Hunter Biden not asking for ‘special treatment’ in gun case court appearance, lawyer says

    [ad_1]

    Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, arrives at federal court to plead guilty to two misdemeanor charges of willfully failing to pay income taxes, Wilmington, Delaware, July 26, 2023.

    Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

    Hunter Biden will plead not guilty during his initial court appearance for three federal felony gun charges, his attorney said Tuesday as he denied that the son of President Joe Biden is asking for “special treatment” at his first court appearance in the case.

    Hunter’s lawyer Abbe Lowell revealed that planned plea as he asked a judge to hold the court appearance by video conference instead of in person at U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware.

    Biden, who lives in California, “will waive reading of the indictment, which is merely a few pages and could easily be read at a video conference,” Lowell wrote in a two-page letter to Judge Christopher Burke.

    “Mr. Biden also will enter a plea of not guilty, and there is no reason why he cannot utter those two words by video conference,” Lowell wrote.

    The court appearance has not yet been scheduled.

    Biden, 53, was indicted last week on three criminal counts related to his possession of a firearm while being an unlawful drug user.

    Biden, who has been open about his substance abuse struggles, is charged with two counts of lying about his illegal drug use in connection with his purchase of a Colt Cobra revolver. The third count accuses him of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful drug user.

    Lowell wrote in Tuesday’s letter that Biden was “not seeking any special treatment” by requesting the video conference for his first appearance in court on the charges.

    Conducting the court hearing via video would “minimize an unnecessary burden on government resources and the disruption to the courthouse and downtown areas” in Wilmington from Secret Service agents accompanying Biden, Lowell argued.

    “Without getting into specifics, numerous agents and vehicles are required for what would have to be a two-day event (for a proceeding that may be very short in duration),” the attorney wrote.

    Federal prosecutors oppose Biden’s bid for a virtual appearance, the judge noted in a court order Monday that directed them to respond by Wednesday.

    Lowell’s letter called prosecutors’ opposition “puzzling,” arguing that he was making a “common-sense request in seeking a video appearance.

    Biden in late July pleaded not guilty to separate misdemeanor charges of failing to pay federal taxes on more than $1.5 million in annual income in 2017 and 2018.

    He had intended to plead guilty to those charges, but his deal with prosecutors fell apart in court under scrutiny from a judge.

    Biden also expected to enter into a pretrial diversion agreement on a gun-related crime at that time that could have seen him avoid being criminally charged with a firearm count if he complied with the deal’s conditions for two years.

    After the plea deal on the tax charges collapsed, U.S. Attorney David Weiss said that the gun charge diversion agreement had been withdrawn.

    But Lowell argues that the deal took effect and thus bars Biden from being charged with the gun crimes. Lowell also has said the charges are unconstitutional as a result of a 2022 Supreme Court ruling knocking down a New York gun law. All six conservatives on the Supreme Court, three of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump, voted in favor of that decision.

    Lowell noted in a court filing earlier this month that Biden “has been following and will continue to follow the conditions of that Agreement.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden’s aggressive new legal strategy initially caused anxiety at White House | CNN Politics

    Hunter Biden’s aggressive new legal strategy initially caused anxiety at White House | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The White House initially reacted with anxiety toward a decision by Hunter Biden’s lawyer to pursue an aggressive legal strategy against increasing Republican attacks on him, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    Much of the tension centered around Kevin Morris, the lawyer, bringing on attorney Abbe Lowell, who is known for his aggressive style and litigious nature. Since joining Hunter Biden’s legal team, Lowell has fired off letters demanding investigations into Biden’s opponents, filed a federal lawsuit in his defense and been involved in a child support dispute.

    According to multiple sources, senior White House officials and Democrats held a meeting late last year with Lowell, who was expected to be handling GOP-led congressional investigations into the president’s son but whose portfolio has since expanded.

    While some of the reticence at the White House around the new legal strategy has abated, sources told CNN, the initial anxiety about publicly pushing back against Hunter Biden’s detractors underscores some of the thorny issues that President Joe Biden must contend with as he runs for reelection.

    The president affirmed his support for his son in an interview that aired Friday on MSNBC, saying that the Justice Department’s investigation would not affect his presidency. “First of all, my son has done nothing wrong. I trust him. I have faith in him,” Biden told Stephanie Ruhle. “It impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.”

    A source close to Hunter Biden’s legal team said one reason the anxiety has died down is because the strategy has been successful. It’s also been assuaged in part thanks to the more open lines of communication between Lowell, the White House and President Biden’s personal attorney Bob Bauer, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    A senior Biden adviser insisted that the president’s advisers “don’t direct or advise” Hunter Biden’s legal team on what to do. The senior adviser stressed that Hunter Biden is a private citizen who has the right to make his own decisions about how to handle his legal strategy.

    A spokeswoman for Lowell declined to comment.

    Hunter Biden’s legal team also has been weighing the possibility of setting up a legal defense fund to help defray his legal bills, according to a person familiar with the matter. A key hurdle is whether they could create a fund with enough guardrails to protect against ethical conflicts for the Biden family.

    House Republicans have already launched an investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings, and a legal defense fund soliciting outside donations would be yet another target for congressional scrutiny.

    Late last year, shortly after Republicans won control of the House, Hunter Biden made it clear to the White House that he wanted to take a more aggressive approach in responding to attacks against him, according to a source familiar with this legal strategy.

    At the time, Republicans had made clear that the younger Biden was going to be their top target for congressional investigations. Hunter Biden was also still staring down a long-running federal criminal investigation focused on tax- and gun-related issues. And when there appeared to be no movement in the criminal probe for months, his lawyer Morris believed it was time to go on the offensive.

    As Hunter Biden and Morris moved ahead with their approach, a source familiar with the behind-the-scenes conversations described the White House as having a very negative reaction to the more aggressive strategy and surprise that Morris brought on Lowell.

    Multiple sources familiar with the legal strategy said the addition of Lowell caused tension even within the legal team. Josh Levy, one of Hunter Biden’s attorneys who had long been aligned with the Biden White House, resigned as Lowell joined the team.

    Levy declined to comment.

    The federal criminal investigation is ongoing, and Hunter Biden’s attorneys recently met with the Justice Department. Hunter Biden denies any wrongdoing.

    Since coming on board, Lowell has fired off letters calling for investigations into various officials. In one sent to the Office of Congressional Ethics, he requested an independent ethics review of GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s conduct for her public statements that “sound and read like school-yard insults rather than the work of a Member of Congress.”

    Another, sent to the Treasury Department’s inspector general, asked for a review of a former Donald Trump aide who allegedly acquired and published online financial activities of Hunter Biden, known as Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). Hunter Biden’s legal team also recently filed a lawsuit accusing the aide of harassing Biden’s team.

    Earlier this week, Lowell traveled to Arkansas to represent Biden in a child support dispute that has become a proxy for Republican investigations, underscoring his wide-reaching involvement in his client’s legal troubles.

    Lowell also filed a lawsuit in March that accused a Delaware computer repair shop owner who worked on a laptop of trying to invade Biden’s privacy and wrongfully sharing his personal data for political purposes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link