ReportWire

Tag: Merrick Garland

  • Trump calls for prosecution of more political foes including Jack Smith and Merrick Garland

    President Trump late Friday pushed for several Biden-era Justice Department officials to be prosecuted over an FBI investigation into the fallout of the 2020 election.

    In a Truth Social post, Mr. Trump accused four high-ranking officials — former Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, special counsel Jack Smith and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco — of signing off on an FBI probe in which investigators allegedly looked at nine Republican lawmakers’ phone records.

    “These Radical Left Lunatics should be prosecuted for their illegal and highly unethical behavior!” the president wrote. He did not specify what crimes he believes they committed.

    The message marks the latest instance of Mr. Trump urging the prosecution of his political foes. Last month, he pushed Attorney General Pam Bondi to look into former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff. Since then, Comey and James have been criminally indicted.

    The GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee revealed earlier this month that the FBI obtained phone data for about eight GOP senators and one GOP representative in 2023 as part of Arctic Frost, an investigation into Mr. Trump and his allies’ attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

    Earlier this week, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who chairs the judiciary panel, released documents that appeared to indicate Wray, Garland and Monaco approved the opening of the Arctic Frost probe in the spring of 2022. Later that year, Garland appointed Smith to independently oversee the criminal investigations into Mr. Trump. 

    In Friday’s post, Mr. Trump alleged the four former officials “spied on Senators and Congressmen/women, and even taped their calls” — though the Judiciary Committee said in a statement earlier this month the records obtained by the FBI didn’t include the content of calls. Instead, the data covered who the lawmakers called and when, and the length of their calls.

    The president also claimed — without evidence — they “cheated and rigged the 2020 Presidential Election.”

    CBS News has reached out to representatives for Smith, Garland and Monaco for comment.

    Grassley excoriated the FBI over its handling of Arctic Frost earlier this month, calling the revelations about lawmakers’ phone records “disturbing and outrageous” and part of a pattern of “weaponization” that was “arguably worse than Watergate.”

    Smith’s attorneys called his actions “entirely lawful, proper and consistent with established Department of Justice policy” in a letter to Grassley earlier this week.

    The phone records that were scrutinized by the FBI covered several days both before and after Jan. 6, 2021, when Mr. Trump pressed lawmakers to vote against certifying former President Joe Biden’s election win. The gambit was unsuccessful as Congress ended up voting to certify, but the process was interrupted by rioting at the Capitol.

    Mr. Trump was charged by Smith’s team in August 2023 for conspiring to overturn the results, but the case was abandoned after Mr. Trump’s win the following year because of a Justice Department legal opinion that states sitting presidents cannot face federal prosecution. 

    Smith’s investigation delved into phone calls between lawmakers and the president on the evening of Jan. 6, which Smith alleged were part of a last-ditch attempt to talk congressional Republicans into blocking Biden’s victory. The 2023 indictment against Mr. Trump lists several attempts by him and his alleged co-conspirators to reach lawmakers by phone. It argued the president “attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol by calling lawmakers to convince them, based on knowingly false claims of election fraud, to delay the certification.”

    Last year, a final report penned by Smith also pointed to phone calls placed by Mr. Trump and members of his circle. It cited toll records from two unindicted co-conspirators who are unnamed, one of them widely believed to be Rudy Giuliani.

    Mr. Trump has lashed out at the federal officials who investigated him in the past.

    His legal team has asked the Justice Department to pay him about $230 million to settle federal damage claims over two investigations into him, CBS News confirmed this week. Those claims focus on the Trump-Russia probe from his first term and the criminal case against Mr. Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents, which was pursued by Smith.

    And a federal watchdog office launched an investigation into Smith for alleged illegal political activity earlier this year. Smith’s attorneys called the claims “imaginary and unfounded.”

    Source link

  • Merrick Garland’s DOJ Pep Rally Proves Trump Won the Debate

    Merrick Garland’s DOJ Pep Rally Proves Trump Won the Debate

    Boss Tweed via Wikimedia Commons

    By Rep. Matt Gaetz for RealClearPolitics

    Today, Merrick Garland held a pep rally at the Department of Justice (DOJ) for his employees. Why now? Well, two nights ago, we heard President Donald Trump take aim at the weaponization of DOJ, and we heard Kamala Harris’s non-response. Trump clearly won that exchange, and the Swamp now has to play clean-up for her mess.

    RELATED: U.S. Borrowing Tops $1.9 Trillion So Far This Year

    Remember that in the debate, the ABC moderators interrupted Trump’s answer about illegal immigrant crime to push fake FBI statistics, which Trump swatted aside. In her response, rather than talk about immigration, Harris brought up that Trump has been prosecuted. Trump explained that each of the cases against him were fake, failing, and coordinated by Garland and the Biden-Harris administration. Of course, we know this is true. But the icing on the cake is that Harris’ final non-answer was that Donald Trump would weaponize the DOJ.

    They are telling on themselves.

    But the Harris campaign strategy, and the orders to Garland are clear: blame Trump for things Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are doing right now.

    Frankly, it has to be tough to be an employee of Biden and Harris. You might be asked to violate Departmental Protocol and do a pre-dawn raid of a former President but turn a blind eye to a legally worse situation involving Joe and classified documents in his garage. You might be asked to surveil your neighbors at church, or at school board meetings. You might be asked not to prosecute real crimes involving immigration, opioids, or Black Lives Matter, but asked to prosecute grandma for praying on a sidewalk.

    It must be demoralizing to go into work every day like this.

    And if you complain? If you follow the rules, but go to the Inspector General, or to Congress, or to your boss? Forget that. In violation of law, you might find yourself without a job, suspended without pay, sidelined, or with your security clearance revoked. That happened under Garland and Harris to Marcus Allen, to Stephen Friend, and to so many others.

    RELATED: FACT CHECK: In Presidential Debate, Harris Deflects on Border Record

    This is unacceptable.

    So while Harris and Garland use their platforms to gaslight America, saying that the Department is “proud” to remain “independent” and free from “political interference,” ask yourself: who is really politicizing the justice system?

    Who is bussing in tens or hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants into our cities, merely for their votes? It’s Kamala Harris, not Donald Trump. Harris and the current administration are responsible for the tragedies on the border every day.

    Who refuses to say the names of Laken Riley, or Rachel Morin, or Jocelyn Nungaray, because it’s not politically expedient? Kamala Harris, not Donald Trump.

    Who has fundraised for violent criminals in Minnesota to keep them out of jail? Kamala Harris, not Donald Trump. It’s the California soft-on-crime policies that Harris brought to that state which are tearing our cities apart, even, perhaps especially in the deep red rural areas in swing states like Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Wisconsin that she wants to target.

    Whose DOJ is sending letters to county clerks across the country, and to Secretaries of State, warning them of prosecution if they get too aggressive in protecting our elections? Kamala Harris’s, not Donald Trump’s. Just this past week states acting under federal law to clean up their voter rolls were threatened by Garland. You can’t make this up.

    Whose DOJ has failed to investigate election issues across the country, from the election technology being wide-open to foreign access and control, to ballots being mailed without proof of citizenship? Kamala Harris’s, not Donald Trump’s.

    RELATED: Tim Walz’s Democrats Are Not the Blue Dog Democrats

    And whose DOJ has made head-fakes at consumer protection, while letting drug prices soar, and who was the tie-breaking vote for the Inflation Reduction Act, which has led to Medicare Part D dropping 21 drugs and raising premiums by the double-digits, with far higher increases to come in 2025? Kamala Harris, not Donald Trump.

    America is at a crossroads, and Merrick Garland is right to be concerned about the politicization of DOJ and the federal government, but maybe he and Kamala Harris should look in the mirror.

    Congressman Matt Gaetz (R) represents the 1st Congressional District of Florida. He is a member of the 117th Congress currently serving his third term in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

    Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

    RealClearWire

    Source link

  • With charges and sanctions, US takes aim at Russian disinformation ahead of November election

    With charges and sanctions, US takes aim at Russian disinformation ahead of November election

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration seized Kremlin-run websites and charged two Russian state media employees in its most sweeping effort yet to push back against what it says are Russian attempts to spread disinformation ahead of the November presidential election.

    The measures, which in addition to indictments also included sanctions and visa restrictions, represented a U.S. government effort just weeks before the November election to disrupt a persistent threat from Russia that American officials have long warned has the potential to sow discord and create confusion among voters.

    Washington has said that Moscow, which intelligence officials have said has a preference for Republican Donald Trump, remains the primary threat to elections even as the FBI continues to investigate a hack by Iran this year that targeted the presidential campaigns of both political parties.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    “The Justice Department’s message is clear: We will have no tolerance for attempts by authoritarian regimes to exploit our democratic systems of government,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said.

    One criminal case disclosed by the Justice Department accuses two employees of RT, a Russian state media company, of covertly funding a Tennessee-based content creation company with nearly $10 million to publish English-language videos on social media platforms including TikTok and YouTube with messages in favor of the Russia government’s interests and agenda, including about the war in Ukraine.

    The nearly 2,000 videos posted by the company have gotten more than 16 million views on YouTube alone, prosecutors said.

    The two defendants, Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva, are charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. They are at large. It was not immediately clear if they had lawyers.

    The Justice Department says the company did not disclose that it was funded by RT and that neither it nor its founders registered as required by law as an agent of a foreign principal.

    Though the indictment does not name the company, it describes it as a Tennessee-based content creation firm with six commentators and with a website identifying itself as “a network of heterodox commentators that focus on Western political and cultural issues.”

    That description exactly matches Tenet Media, an online company that hosts videos made by well-known conservative influencers Tim Pool, Benny Johnson and others.

    Johnson and Pool both responded with posts on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, calling themselves “victims.” Calling Russian President Vladimir Putin a “scumbag,” Pool wrote that “should these allegations prove true, I as well as the other personalities and commentators were deceived.”

    In his post, Johnson wrote that he had been asked a year ago to provide content to a “media startup.” He said his lawyers negotiated a “standard, arms length deal, which was later terminated.”

    Tenet Media’s shows in recent months have featured high-profile conservative guests, including RNC co-chair Lara Trump, former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake.

    In the other action, officials announced the seizure of 32 internet domains that were used by the Kremlin to spread Russian propaganda and weaken international support for Ukraine. The websites were designed to look like authentic news sites but were actually fake, with bogus social media personas manufactured to appear as if they belonged to American users.

    The Justice Department did not identify which candidate in particular the propaganda campaign was meant to boost. But internal strategy notes from participants in the effort released Wednesday by the Justice Department make clear that Trump was the intended beneficiary, even though the names of the candidates were blacked out.

    The proposal for one propaganda project, for instance, states that one of its objectives was to secure a victory for a candidate who is currently out of power and to increase the percentage of Americans who believe the U.S. has been doing too much to support Ukraine. President Joe Biden has strongly supported Ukraine during the invasion by Russia.

    Intelligence agencies have previously charged that Russia, which during the 2016 election launched a massive campaign of foreign influence and interference on Trump’s behalf, was using disinformation to try to meddle in this year’s election. The new steps show the depth of those concerns.

    “Today’s announcement highlights the lengths some foreign governments go to undermine American democratic institutions,” the State Department said. “But these foreign governments should also know that we will not tolerate foreign malign actors intentionally interfering and undermining free and fair elections.”

    The State Department announced it was taking action against several employees of Russian state-owned media outlets, designating them as “foreign missions,” and offering a cash reward for information provided to the U.S. government about foreign election interference.

    It also said it was adding media company Rossiya Segodnya and its subsidiaries RIA Novosti, RT, TV-Novosti, Ruptly, and Sputnik to its list of foreign missions. That will require them to register with the U.S. government and disclose their properties and personnel in the U.S.

    In a speech last month, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said Russia remained the biggest threat to election integrity, accusing Putin and his proxies of “targeting specific voter demographics and swing-state voters to in an effort to manipulate presidential and congressional election outcomes.” Russia, she said was “intent on co-opting unwitting Americans on social media to push narratives advancing Russian interests.”

    She struck a similar note Thursday, saying at an Aspen Institute event that the foreign influence threat is more diverse and aggressive than in past years.

    “More diverse and aggressive because they involve more actors from more countries than we have ever seen before, operating in a more polarized world than we have ever seen before, all fueled by more technology and accelerated by technology, like AI, and that is what we have exposed in the law enforcement actions we took today,” she said.

    Much of the concern around Russia centers on cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns designed to influence the November vote.

    The tactics include using state media like RT to advance anti-U.S. messages and content, as well as networks of fake websites and social media accounts that amplify the claims and inject them into Americans’ online conversations. Typically, these networks seize on polarizing political topics such as immigration, crime or the war in Gaza.

    In many cases, Americans may have no idea that the content they see online either originated or was amplified by the Kremlin.

    Groups linked to the Kremlin are increasingly hiring marketing and communications firms within Russia to outsource some of the work of creating digital propaganda while also covering their tracks, the officials said during the briefing with reporters.

    Two such firms were the subject of new U.S. sanctions announced in March. Authorities say the two Russian companies created fake websites and social media profiles to spread Kremlin disinformation.

    The ultimate goal, however, is to get Americans to spread Russian disinformation without questioning its origin. People are far more likely to trust and repost information that they believe is coming from a domestic source, officials said. Fake websites designed to mimic U.S. news outlets and AI-generated social media profiles are just two methods.

    Messages left with the Russian Embassy were not immediately returned.

    _____

    Associated Press writers Dan Merica and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington, Ali Swenson in New York and Alan Suderman in Richmond, Va., contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • What’s behind the U.S. seizure of Nicolás Maduro’s plane

    What’s behind the U.S. seizure of Nicolás Maduro’s plane

    What’s behind the U.S. seizure of Nicolás Maduro’s plane – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The U.S. has seized a plane belonging to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro over alleged sanctions violations. The jet in question has been transported from the Dominican Republic to Florida. CBS News correspondent Cristian Benavides has more from Fort Lauderdale.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Has Marijuana Become A Political Football

    Has Marijuana Become A Political Football

    With almost 90% of the country believing it should be legal in some form, especially among younger voters – who is going to be the party make the goal?

    The presidential race is heating up and both parties are grappling with changing demographics and a tight race.  Also, there will be 41 million new Gen Z voters who will be able to participate in the election, and they see things different from boomers.  One big issues is causing heartburn on at least one side….has marijuana become a political football?

    RELATED: The Feds Have Until November To Help Veterans

    Data shows between 85-89% of the country believe cannabis should be legal in some form.  Florida went against their governor to force recreational marijuana to be on the ballot, and have raised $60 million to the Governor’s team which has raised less than $100,000.  But the biggest issues is Gen Z, the generation who is drifting away from alcohol and toward weed.  To them, it is like buying alcohol and they don’t understand why old politicians are so resistant to what has been proven to a medical aide.  While it is behind voter concerns of the economy, public safety and democracy, it is still will play a role in influencing millions of votes. And the party who gets it across the goal line will be a hero.

    The current administration has been slow to make a movement and only in the election year has significant progress been made. Following the recommendations of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) have used science to encourage the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to follow the process and reschedule cannabis to a Schedule III showing it has medical benefits and is classified like Ibuprofen.  But the late start is hurting as the GOP is throwing up roadblocks as the public (by 90%) and the medical community has taken very public stances.  The Biden administration may have waited too long to secure it before ballots drop.  Vice President Harris, who was a vocal, strong adversary of legalization has revered course and embraced the rescheduling mantle and the potential benefits for patients, veterans and voters.

    RELATED: Science Says Medical Marijuana Improves Quality Of Life

    The Republicans are pulling out all stops to keep it from passing at all. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-KY), long a critic, has allowed votes to stop the process and allowed members to demand the DEA stop, slow, or delay the process. In a letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra GOP members of the House expressed something fishy is going on for the process to move at the usual pace. Part of the change in policy the overwhelming support of the the major medical associations. The Republicans are pushing a policy which is clearly against the public desire, which is somewhat confusing if you want to win.

    In addition, Florida Governor DeSantis, despite received donations from some in the industry, has taken a full frontal attack.  Despite dropping out of the race, DeSantis still likes the spotlight. At a Florida Sheriff’s convention, he spoke on the subject of legal weed and was a bit loose on the facts, especially when it comes to the success is in Colorado.  DeSantis has called voters confused and patiently explained his nanny state philosophy is best and has state the will of the voters should be set aside for his personal beliefs.

    The voting public has been showing its will with their purchase power. Already Illionis, a key state, has sold over $1 billion in weed this year. The next 100 days will be critical for the  cannabis industry and for rights of voters.

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • US arrests 2 leaders of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel: ‘El Mayo’ Zambada and son of ‘El Chapo’

    US arrests 2 leaders of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel: ‘El Mayo’ Zambada and son of ‘El Chapo’

    WASHINGTON – Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, a longtime leader of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, and Joaquín Guzmán López, a son of another infamous cartel leader, were arrested by U.S. authorities in Texas on Thursday, the U.S. Justice Department said.

    A leader of the powerful Sinaloa cartel for decades alongside Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, Zambada is one of the most powerful drug traffickers in the world and known for running the cartel’s smuggling operations while keeping a lower profile.

    The U.S. government had offered a reward of up to $15 million for information leading to Zambada’s capture. The Justice Department said the men were arrested in El Paso but didn’t immediately provide details about how they were taken into custody.

    Zambada and Guzmán López, who have eluded authorities for decades, oversaw the trafficking of “tens of thousands of pounds of drugs into the United States, along with related violence,” FBI Director Christopher Wray said, adding that now they will “face justice in the United States.”

    “Fentanyl is the deadliest drug threat our country has ever faced, and the Justice Department will not rest until every single cartel leader, member, and associate responsible for poisoning our communities is held accountable,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement.

    Mexican authorities didn’t immediately comment on the arrests.

    U.S. officials have been seeking Zambada’s capture for years, and he has been charged in a number of U.S. cases. He was charged in February in the Eastern District of New York with conspiring to manufacture and distribute the synthetic opioid. Prosecutors said he was continuing to lead the Sinaloa cartel, “one of the most violent and powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world.”

    Zambada, one of the longest-surviving capos in Mexico, was considered the cartel’s strategist, more involved in day-to-day operations than his flashier and better-known boss, “El Chapo” Guzmán, who was sentenced to life in prison in the U.S. in 2019 and is the father of Guzmán López.

    Zambada is an old-fashioned capo in an era of younger kingpins known for their flamboyant lifestyles of club-hopping and brutal tactics of beheading, dismembering and even skinning their rivals. While Zambada has fought those who challenged him, he is known for concentrating on the business side of trafficking and avoiding gruesome cartel violence that would draw attention.

    In an April 2010 interview with the Mexican magazine Proceso, he acknowledged that he lived in constant fear of going to prison and would contemplate suicide rather than be captured.

    “I’m terrified of being incarcerated,” Zambada said. “I’d like to think that, yes, I would kill myself.”

    The interview was surprising for a kingpin known for keeping his head down, but he gave strict instructions on where and when the encounter would take place, and the article gave no hint of his whereabouts.

    Zambada reputedly won the loyalty of locals in his home state of Sinaloa and neighboring Durango through his largess, sponsoring local farmers and distributing money and beer in his birthplace of El Alamo.

    Although little is known about Zambada’s early life, he is believed to have gotten his start as an enforcer in the 1970s.

    By the early 1990s, he was a major player in the Juarez cartel, transporting tons of cocaine and marijuana.

    Zambada started gaining the trust of Colombian traffickers, allegiances that helped him come out on top in the cartel world of ever-shifting alliances. Eventually he became so powerful that he broke off from the Juarez cartel, but still managed to keep strong ties with the gang and avoided a turf war. He also developed a partnership with “El Chapo” Guzman that would take him to the top of the Sinaloa Cartel.

    Zambada’s detention follows some important arrests of other Sinaloa cartel figures, including one of his sons and another son of “El Chapo” Guzmán, Ovidio Guzmán López. Zambada’s son pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court in San Diego in 2021 to being a leader in the Sinaloa cartel.

    In recent years, Guzman’s sons have led a faction of the cartel known as the little Chapos, or “Chapitos” that has been identified as a main exporter of fentanyl to the U.S. market.

    They were seen as more violent and flamboyant than Zambada. Their security chief was arrested by Mexican authorities in November.

    Ovidio Guzmán López was arrested and extradited to the U.S. last year. He pleaded not guilty to drug trafficking charges in Chicago in September.

    Mike Vigil, former head of international operations for the DEA, said Zambada’s arrest is important but unlikely to have much impact on the flow of drugs to the U.S. Joaquín Guzmán López was the least influential of the four sons who made up the Chapitos, Vigil said.

    “This is a great blow for the rule of law, but is it going to have an impact on the cartel? I don’t think so,” Vigil said.

    “It’s not going to have a dent on the drug trade because somebody from within the cartel is going to replace him,” Vigil said.

    ___

    Verza and Sherman reported from Mexico City.

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

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Jury selection is beginning in gun case against President Joe Biden’s son

    Jury selection is beginning in gun case against President Joe Biden’s son

    WILMINGTON, Del. – Jury selection is to begin Monday in the federal gun case against President Joe Biden’s son after a deal with prosecutors fell apart that would have avoided the spectacle of a trial so close to the 2024 election.

    Hunter Biden, who spent the weekend with his father, has been charged with three felonies stemming from a 2018 firearm purchase when he was, according to his memoir, in the throes of a crack addiction. He has been accused of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application used to screen firearms applicants when he said he was not a drug user, and illegally having the gun for 11 days.

    He has pleaded not guilty and has argued he’s being unfairly targeted by the Justice Department, after Republicans decried the now-defunct deal as special treatment.

    The trial comes just four days after Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies in New York City after a jury found him guilty of a scheme to cover up a hush money payment to a porn actor to fend off damage to his 2016 presidential campaign. The two criminal cases are not related, but their proximity underscores how the criminal courtroom has taken center stage during the 2024 campaign.

    Hunter Biden is also facing a separate trial in California in September on charges of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes. Both cases were to have been resolved through a deal with prosecutors last July, the culmination of a years-long investigation into his business dealings.

    But Judge Maryellen Noreika questioned some unusual aspects of the deal that included a proposed guilty plea to misdemeanor offenses to resolve the tax crimes and a “diversion agreement” on the gun charge, which meant as long as he stayed out of trouble for two years the case would be dismissed. The lawyers squabbled over the agreement, could not come to a resolution and the deal fell apart. Attorney General Merrick Garland then appointed the top investigator as a special counsel in August, and a month later Hunter Biden was indicted.

    This trial isn’t about Hunter Biden’s foreign business affairs — which Republicans have seized on without evidence to try to paint the Biden family as corrupt. But it will excavate some of Hunter Biden’s darkest moments and put them on display.

    The president’s allies are worried about the toll the trial may take on the elder Biden, who’s long been concerned about the well-being and sobriety of his only living son and who must now watch as those painful past mistakes are publicly scrutinized. He’s also protective; Hunter Biden was with his father all weekend before the case began, biking with his dad, and attending church together.

    Biden, in a last minute switch in plans, shifted from his Rehoboth Beach home back to his Wilmington compound on Sunday evening. Boarding the helicopter on Sunday was the only time the president was seen publicly without his son all weekend.

    Allies are also worried the trial could become a distraction as the president tries to campaign under anemic poll numbers and as he is preparing for an upcoming presidential debate while the proceedings play out.

    Prosecutors are hoping to show he was in the throes of addiction when he bought the gun – and therefore lied on the forms. They have said they’re planning to use as evidence Hunter Biden’s published memoir, and they may also introduce contents from a laptop that he left at a Delaware repair shop and never retrieved. The contents made their way to Republicans in 2020 and were publicly leaked, revealing embarrassing and personal photos where he’s often nude and doing drugs and highly personal messages where he asks dealers about scores.

    The judge will ask a group of prospective jurors a series of questions to determine whether they can serve impartially on the jury, including whether they have donated to political campaigns or run for political office. She will ask whether their views about the 2024 presidential campaign prevent them from being impartial.

    She’s also going to ask whether prospective jurors believe Hunter Biden is being prosecuted because his father is the president. Also, she’ll ask about firearms purchasing and addiction issues, including: “Do you believe someone who is addicted to drugs should not be charged with a crime?”

    The case against Hunter Biden stems from a period where, by his own public admission, he was addicted to crack. His descent into drugs and alcohol followed the 2015 death of his brother Beau Biden from cancer. He bought and owned a gun for 11 days in October 2018, and indicated on the gun purchase form that he was not using drugs.

    Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty in both cases, and his attorneys have suggested they may argue he didn’t see himself as an addict when prosecutors say he checked “no” to the question on the form. They’ll also attack the credibility of the gun store owner.

    Prosecutors, meanwhile, are also planning to call as witnesses Hunter Biden’s ex-wife and his brother’s widow Hallie, with whom he became romantically involved.

    If he were to be convicted, he could face up to 25 years in prison, though first-time offenders do not get anywhere near the maximum and it is unclear whether the judge would actually give him time behind bars if he were convicted.

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

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

    Source link

  • Ticketmaster, Live Nation sued by DOJ over alleged monopoly

    Ticketmaster, Live Nation sued by DOJ over alleged monopoly

    Ticketmaster, Live Nation sued by DOJ over alleged monopoly – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Thursday an antitrust lawsuit against Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation. The Justice Department is accusing them of illegally monopolizing the live entertainment industry to the detriment of concertgoers and artists alike.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • House Republicans ditch their day jobs to stand with Trump, while legislating languishes

    House Republicans ditch their day jobs to stand with Trump, while legislating languishes

    Leaving Washington behind, prominent far-right House Republicans who have repeatedly thrown this Congress into chaos showed up Thursday at Donald Trump’s hush money trial to do what they do best.

    They stood outside Trump Tower filming their support for the indicted former president. They filed into the Manhattan courthouse “standing back and standing by,” as Rep. Matt Gaetz put it — invoking Trump’s call to the extremist Proud Boys. They were admonished to put down their cell phones.

    And the House Republicans commandeered the spotlight — much like House Speaker Mike Johnson did earlier in the week — to rant against what they called the “kangaroo court” and the “political persecution” of Trump, as their day jobs waited for their return.

    “President Trump is not going anywhere,” said Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., as hecklers interrupted.

    “And we are not going anywhere either. We are here to stand with him.”

    The split-screen scene between New York and D.C. provided one of the more vivid examples yet of how Republicans have tossed aside the de rigueur tasks of governing in favor of the engineered spectacle of grievance, performance and outrage that powers Trump-era American politics.

    As much of Congress stalled out yet again, unable to legislate through the country’s challenges, the Republicans chose to spend the day going viral.

    The excursion was all the more remarkable because it comes as House Republicans were focused Thursday on moving to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress — part of a broader campaign attack on President Joe Biden.

    The House’s Oversight and Judiciary Committee Republicans are demanding the Justice Department turn over evidence in the classified documents case against Biden, including an audio interview that is potentially embarrassing to the president as he stumbles through some answers. The Judiciary panel soldiered on Thursday, while the Oversight committee punted its hearing to evening, once lawmakers return.

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, perhaps the most outspoken of Trump’s allies who joined him in New York when he was first charged in the case, lambasted her GOP colleagues for dashing to Manhattan when she said they should be back in Washington doing congressional business.

    “I’m here doing my job,” Greene said on the eve of the trip.

    Greene particularly criticized Johnson, the speaker she tried to oust, for “running up” to New York when she is pushing him toward her next big project, dismantling Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office and its federal indictments against Trump, including for trying to overturn the 2020 election in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

    It all unfolds as Congress is on record as being among the most unproductive in recent times, with few legislative accomplishments or bills passed into law.

    Republicans swept to House majority control in 2023, but became quickly consumed by infighting as traditional conservatives were pushed aside by Trump’s national populist Make America Great Again movement. They ousted their own leader, then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, derailed priority bills and left Johnson forced to rely on help from Democrats to stay in power, an unheard of scenario.

    “The extreme MAGA Republicans have brought nothing but chaos, dysfunction and extremism to the Congress from the very beginning,” said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader. “And they cannot point to a single thing that they’ve been able to do on their own to deliver real results, to solve problems for hardworking American taxpayers.”

    “Get a job,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee posted on social media.

    Outside the courthouse, the dozen or so Republican lawmakers didn’t dress the same, as others did with matching dark suits and Trump-styled red ties earlier in the week, but still formed a unified front for Trump.

    “We’re watching the persecution of a patriot,” said Rep. Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn. “What a price to be a patriot President Trump has paid.”

    Gaetz called it the “Mr. Potato Head doll of crimes” where the prosecutors had to “stick together a bunch of things” to make a case.

    While some like Gaetz are among Trump’s biggest backers in Congress, others are working quickly to burnish their credentials with the MAGA movement that now defines the Republican Party for their own political survival.

    The chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., had been late to endorse Trump, and now faces a difficult primary next month. His Trump-aligned challenger, Republican John McGuire, had a potentially even better position — riding with Trump’s motorcade to the courthouse.

    “We’re here to have his back,” Good said of Trump. “We’re here to defend him and to tell the truth about this travesty of justice, this political persecution, this election interference, this rigging of elections.”

    Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., who had been a supporter of his home state presidential contender Nikki Haley, derided the “kangaroo court” prosecuting Trump.

    Arizona Rep. Eli Crane said Democrats are prosecuting Trump because “they can’t beat him” at the ballot box in November.

    Crane said he and other Republicans are fighting to “Make America Great Again,” which after the afternoon of heckling, drew a round of cheers.

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

    Lisa Mascaro, Associated Press

    Source link

  • House Republicans move forward with holding AG Merrick Garland in contempt

    House Republicans move forward with holding AG Merrick Garland in contempt

    House Republicans will take their first step towards holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress on Thursday for refusing to turn over the audio recordings of special counsel Robert Hur’s interviews with President Joe Biden.Video above: Special Counsel Robert Hur testifies before House committee about his report on Biden’s handling of classified documentsThe House Oversight and Judiciary committees will each hold markups on their respective reports recommending a contempt of Congress resolution against Garland for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. If passed out of the committees, the resolutions would next go to the House floor for a vote by the whole chamber. It is not clear when that vote would be held.Shortly after Hur closed his investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents in February, Republicans subpoenaed the Department of Justice for a number of documents and information, including the audio recordings of the special counsel’s interviews with Biden and his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer.While Hur’s probe led to no charges against the president, Republicans have seized on Hur’s description of Biden as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” in his final report.CNN has sued for access to recordings of federal investigators’ interview with Biden in the now-closed probe over his handling of classified documents.Through their subpoenas to DOJ, House Republicans have argued that the audio recordings are crucial to their impeachment inquiry into Biden, which remains stalled as the prospects of the investigation ending in impeachment are increasingly unlikely. Without the votes in their narrow majority or evidence of an impeachable offense, Republicans are now struggling with how to end their probe and are looking for ways to target other members of the Biden administration.Video below: Special counsel report says Biden willfully retained classified infoThe Department has made the majority of the subpoenaed materials available to House Republicans, including transcripts of the special counsel’s interviews with Biden and his ghostwriter, but it has doubled down on its decision to not release the audio files of the interviews, stating that Republicans have not established a legitimate legislative purpose for demanding these recordings.In their contempt reports, Republicans stated that DOJ does not get to determine what information is useful to their investigation, and argued that the verbal nuances of an audio recording provide unique insight into a subject that are not reflected in a transcript.“The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to dictate to Congress how to proceed with an impeachment inquiry or to conduct its oversight,” the report reads.In a recent letter to the Republican-led committees, DOJ Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte wrote to the House Oversight and Judiciary panels that Republicans do not need the audio recordings since DOJ turned over the transcripts, which would address Republican allegations made about the president as part of their impeachment inquiry.“It seems that the more information you receive, the less satisfied you are, and the less justification you have for contempt, the more you rush towards it,” Uriarte wrote.DOJ has also outlined distinct privacy concerns related to an audio recording of an interview compared to a written transcript, and how the release of such an audio file could dissuade cooperation from future witnesses in criminal investigations.Raising concerns that Republicans want these audio files for political purposes, he added: “the Committees’ inability to identify a need for these audio files grounded in legislative or impeachment purposes raises concerns about what other purposes they might serve.”Republicans, meanwhile, argue in their report that while the transcripts of the interviews reflect what was said, “they do not reflect important verbal context, such as tone or tenor, or nonverbal context, such as pauses or pace of delivery.”Such pauses and inflections, Republicans claim, “can provide indications of a witness’s ability to recall events, or whether the individual is intentionally giving evasive or nonresponsive testimony to investigators.”Republicans pointed to a recent example of when a transcript and audio recording of the president diverged, stating that at a speech last month, Biden read a teleprompter cue out loud during his speech, which was reflected in the recording of the event but not in the initial transcript of his remarks.The House Oversight Committee pushed back the start time of its Thursday markup so that Republican committee members can attend the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump in New York City, two sources familiar with the planning told CNN.When asked to comment on the reason for the schedule change, an Oversight Committee spokeswoman told CNN, “Due to member schedule conflicts, the markup is now starting at a different time to accommodate members’ schedules.”

    House Republicans will take their first step towards holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress on Thursday for refusing to turn over the audio recordings of special counsel Robert Hur’s interviews with President Joe Biden.

    Video above: Special Counsel Robert Hur testifies before House committee about his report on Biden’s handling of classified documents

    The House Oversight and Judiciary committees will each hold markups on their respective reports recommending a contempt of Congress resolution against Garland for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena. If passed out of the committees, the resolutions would next go to the House floor for a vote by the whole chamber. It is not clear when that vote would be held.

    Shortly after Hur closed his investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents in February, Republicans subpoenaed the Department of Justice for a number of documents and information, including the audio recordings of the special counsel’s interviews with Biden and his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer.

    While Hur’s probe led to no charges against the president, Republicans have seized on Hur’s description of Biden as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” in his final report.

    CNN has sued for access to recordings of federal investigators’ interview with Biden in the now-closed probe over his handling of classified documents.

    Through their subpoenas to DOJ, House Republicans have argued that the audio recordings are crucial to their impeachment inquiry into Biden, which remains stalled as the prospects of the investigation ending in impeachment are increasingly unlikely. Without the votes in their narrow majority or evidence of an impeachable offense, Republicans are now struggling with how to end their probe and are looking for ways to target other members of the Biden administration.

    Video below: Special counsel report says Biden willfully retained classified info

    The Department has made the majority of the subpoenaed materials available to House Republicans, including transcripts of the special counsel’s interviews with Biden and his ghostwriter, but it has doubled down on its decision to not release the audio files of the interviews, stating that Republicans have not established a legitimate legislative purpose for demanding these recordings.

    In their contempt reports, Republicans stated that DOJ does not get to determine what information is useful to their investigation, and argued that the verbal nuances of an audio recording provide unique insight into a subject that are not reflected in a transcript.

    “The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to dictate to Congress how to proceed with an impeachment inquiry or to conduct its oversight,” the report reads.

    In a recent letter to the Republican-led committees, DOJ Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte wrote to the House Oversight and Judiciary panels that Republicans do not need the audio recordings since DOJ turned over the transcripts, which would address Republican allegations made about the president as part of their impeachment inquiry.

    “It seems that the more information you receive, the less satisfied you are, and the less justification you have for contempt, the more you rush towards it,” Uriarte wrote.

    DOJ has also outlined distinct privacy concerns related to an audio recording of an interview compared to a written transcript, and how the release of such an audio file could dissuade cooperation from future witnesses in criminal investigations.

    Raising concerns that Republicans want these audio files for political purposes, he added: “the Committees’ inability to identify a need for these audio files grounded in legislative or impeachment purposes raises concerns about what other purposes they might serve.”

    Republicans, meanwhile, argue in their report that while the transcripts of the interviews reflect what was said, “they do not reflect important verbal context, such as tone or tenor, or nonverbal context, such as pauses or pace of delivery.”

    Such pauses and inflections, Republicans claim, “can provide indications of a witness’s ability to recall events, or whether the individual is intentionally giving evasive or nonresponsive testimony to investigators.”

    Republicans pointed to a recent example of when a transcript and audio recording of the president diverged, stating that at a speech last month, Biden read a teleprompter cue out loud during his speech, which was reflected in the recording of the event but not in the initial transcript of his remarks.

    The House Oversight Committee pushed back the start time of its Thursday markup so that Republican committee members can attend the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump in New York City, two sources familiar with the planning told CNN.

    When asked to comment on the reason for the schedule change, an Oversight Committee spokeswoman told CNN, “Due to member schedule conflicts, the markup is now starting at a different time to accommodate members’ schedules.”

    Source link

  • FTX Founder Samuel Bankman-Fried Sentenced to 25 Years

    FTX Founder Samuel Bankman-Fried Sentenced to 25 Years

    Cointelegraph, CC BY 3.0

    By Brett Rowland (The Center Square)

    A judge sentenced FTX founder Samuel Bankman-Fried to 25 years in prison on Thursday, marking the long fall of the onetime cryptocurrency star.

    U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan also sentenced Samuel Bankman-Fried, known as SBF, to three years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $11 billion for orchestrating a massive fraud. 

    Bankman-Fried, who was the founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX and the cryptocurrency trading firm Alameda Research, misappropriated billions of dollars of customer funds deposited with FTX. He defrauded investors in FTX of more than $1.7 billion and defrauded lenders to Alameda of more than $1.3 billion, according to prosecutors. 

    Four American Presidents Were In New York, Only Trump Went To The Wake Of A Slain Police Officer

    “There are serious consequences for defrauding customers and investors,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “Anyone who believes they can hide their financial crimes behind wealth and power, or behind a shiny new thing they claim no one else is smart enough to understand, should think twice.”

    Bankman-Fried, 32, of Stanford, California, was previously convicted of two counts of wire fraud, two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, after a one-month trial.

    Bankman-Fried once led FTX, a digital asset exchange platform that skyrocketed in popularity before it crashed in 2022. Before the scandal, Bankman-Fried spent time with the rich and powerful. According to OpenSecrets, Bankman-Fried gave roughly $40 million in public donations in the 2022 election cycle, with the vast majority, $36.8 million, going to Democrat-affiliated groups. After the scandal, those who took Bankman-Fried’s money raced to give it back, as The Center Square previously reported.

    Bankman-Fried’s sentence ranks among the longest for fraud in the U.S.

    Bernard Ebbers, co-founder and CEO of WorldCom, got 25 years, but was released after 13 years due to declining health. He died a month after his release.

    Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling initially got 24 years, but that was later reduced to 14 years. He was released in 2019 after serving 12 years. 

    Bernie Madoff, the financier behind the largest known Ponzi scheme, got 150 years. He died in 2021 after serving nine years. 

    An Enormous Amount Of Money Is Being Lost Due To Baltimore Bridge Collapse

    Bankman-Fried was the founder and chief executive officer of FTX, an international cryptocurrency exchange. From 2019 to 2022, he was the leader and mastermind of a scheme to defraud customers of FTX by misappropriating billions of dollars of those customers’ funds, according to federal prosecutors.

    Bankman-Fried took FTX customer funds for his personal use, to make investments and millions of dollars of political contributions to candidates, and to repay billions of dollars in loans owed by Alameda Research, a cryptocurrency trading fund that Bankman-Fried also founded. Bankman-Fried also defrauded lenders to Alameda and equity investors in FTX by providing them false and misleading financial information that concealed his misuse of customer deposits, prosecutors said. 

    Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

    The Center Square

    Source link

  • Justice Department files antitrust lawsuit against Apple over its iPhone

    Justice Department files antitrust lawsuit against Apple over its iPhone

    Justice Department files antitrust lawsuit against Apple over its iPhone – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Justice Department Thursday filed a massive antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging the tech giant unfairly tries to keep users hooked on iPhones, and charges high fees to app developers which ultimately cost consumers money. Jo Ling Kent has details.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • U.S. Accuses Apple of Running a Monopoly

    U.S. Accuses Apple of Running a Monopoly

    Apple is in major legal trouble as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 16 state and district attorneys filed a lawsuit against the iPhone maker, as reported by the Washington Post Thursday. They accuse Apple of building a monopoly with the iPhone.

    The suit alleges Apple’s changes to its rules and high fees created a “degraded user experience.” Some of the practices cited included the iMessage green bubbles for non-iPhone users, the 30% App Store fee, and privacy issues with the Apple Wallet.

    “We alleged that Apple has consolidated its monopoly power, not by making its own products better, but by making other products worse,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a press conference Thursday. “If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly.”

    Apple says the suit is wrong on the facts and the law.

    “This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets,” the company said in an emailed statement to Gizmodo Thursday. “If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple—where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology.”

    Apple routinely finds itself in legal trouble over its business practices, but the company finds ways to keep winning. Last year, the legal battle between Epic and Apple over the App Store payment options went all the way to the Supreme Court, but Apple prevailed in the end.

    On the hardware side, Apple has been fighting right-to-repair laws so that it can keep repairs for its products in-house. However, the company does seem like it’s changing its mind on some recent right-to-repair legislation in certain states.

    But that’s in the U.S. Over in the European Union (EU), Apple has been getting spanked by regulations. Not only did regulators make Apple go all-in with USB-C cables for the iPhone 15 last year, but the EU also made Apple open up its software to allow third-party app stores onto its devices.

    The Biden administration has picked multiple fights with some big companies over antitrust violations. Last year, the Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon for operating an illegal monopoly while the DOJ filed a suit against Google for the same reason. Microsoft was also the focus of antitrust legal action when it acquired video game publisher Activision. That deal was completed in October, but the FTC appealed that merger in December seeking to reverse it.

    Oscar Gonzalez

    Source link

  • U.S. hits Apple with landmark antitrust suit, accusing tech giant of stifling competition

    U.S. hits Apple with landmark antitrust suit, accusing tech giant of stifling competition

    Washington — Apple Inc., one of the world’s most valuable and influential companies, illegally engaged in anti-competitive behavior in an effort to build a “moat around its smartphone monopoly” and maximize its profits at the expense of consumers, the Justice Department alleged in a blockbuster antitrust lawsuit filed Thursday.

    In a complaint filed in federal district court in New Jersey, the Justice Department accused the company of using its app development rules, iPhone features and hardware that customers use every day — including iMessage, Apple Wallet and smartwatches — to thwart competition and expand its business by charging higher prices. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia joined the Justice Department as plaintiffs in the suit.

    “Apple has maintained monopoly power in the smartphone market not simply by staying ahead of the competition on the merits, but by violating federal antitrust law,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in remarks at Justice Department headquarters. “Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies break the law.”

    The Apple antitrust suit

    Attorney General Merrick Garland announces an antitrust suit against Apple at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., on March 21, 2024.
    Attorney General Merrick Garland announces an antitrust suit against Apple at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., on March 21, 2024.

    MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images


    In their 88-page complaint, government attorneys alleged Apple violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, including by employing “a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives.” 

    Specifically, investigators alleged the tech giant — which brought in nearly $400 billion in revenue last year — boxed out its smaller competitors by blocking the expansion of so-called “super apps” that provide identical services across devices; disrupting messaging formats and capabilities between Apple and non-Apple devices; and monopolizing the use of tap-to-pay functions on iPhones to only the Apple Wallet.

    Users have long been frustrated by discrepancies when sending messages between Apple and non-Apple products, including lower media quality, diminished editing capabilities and even different colors for the messages themselves. Garland said those issues were examples of Apple degrading users’ experience to entice them to stay in the company’s ecosystem.

    “As any iPhone user who has ever seen a green text message or received a grainy, tiny video can attest, Apple’s anti-competitive conduct also includes making it more difficult for iPhone users to message with users of non-Apple products,” he said. “It does this by diminishing the functionality of its own messaging app, and by diminishing the functionality of third-party messaging apps.”

    Apple’s alleged anti-competitive practices did not stop there, however, according to investigators. They also allegedly worked to stifle the use of non-Apple smartwatches by limiting how users interacted with them on the iPhone and used cloud streaming, location services and web browsers on iPhones to snuff out smaller rivals. 

    “Critically, Apple’s anticompetitive conduct not only limits competition in the smartphone market, but also reverberates through the industries that are affected by these restrictions, including financial services, fitness, gaming, social media, news media, entertainment, and more,” the complaint alleged. “Unless Apple’s anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct is stopped, it will likely extend and entrench its iPhone monopoly to other markets and parts of the economy.”

    The government asked the court to order Apple to cease its allegedly anti-competitive activity and stop undermining cross-platform services and hardware. The plaintiffs said the court should take action needed to “restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by Apple’s unlawful conduct.”

    In response to the suit, Apple said in a statement that the litigation “threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets.”

    “If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple — where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology,” the company said. “We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

    Apple is not the first behemoth in the tech space to face scrutiny from the Justice Department’s antitrust division. Over the last few years, Google has faced two lawsuits — one during the Trump administration and another during President Biden’s administration — that alleged monopolistic business practices.

    Jo Ling Kent and Andres Triay contributed reporting.

    Source link

  • “Merrick Garland” Is a Dirty Word Around the White House These Days: Report

    “Merrick Garland” Is a Dirty Word Around the White House These Days: Report


    As you’ve probably heard by now, special counsel Robert Hur last week issued a report declaring that he would not bring charges against Joe Biden over the president’s handling of classified documents—and also describing Biden, in his opinion, as an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Shockingly, that characterization did not sit well with Democrats, who’ve called the report a politically motivated smear job, or the president himself, who responded, “My memory is fine,” and asked, “How the hell dare he raise that?” in regard to Hur’s claim that Biden could not remember exactly when his son Beau died.

    But Biden and people on Team Biden aren’t only pissed at Hur. They’re apparently also livid with the guy who appointed him as special counsel, who himself was appointed by the president: Attorney General Merrick Garland.

    Per Politico:

    Joe Biden has told aides and outside advisers that Attorney General Merrick Garland did not do enough to rein in a special counsel report stating that the president had diminished mental faculties, according to two people close to the president, as White House frustration with the head of the Justice Department grows…. Biden and his closest advisers believe Hur went well beyond his purview and was gratuitous and misleading in his descriptions, according to those two people, who were granted anonymity to speak freely. And they put part of the blame on Garland, who they say should have demanded edits to Hur’s report, including around the descriptions of Biden’s faltering memory.

    According to Politico, Biden has not “weighed in on Garland’s future,” but many of the president’s top advisers believe the AG would be unlikely to keep his job in a potential second term. In addition to reportedly believing that Garland only appointed a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden due to outside pressure, Biden has recently “grumbled to aides and advisers that had Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former president Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded,” according to two individuals familiar with the matter.

    A spokesperson for the DOJ declined Politico’s request for comment, though a former senior Justice Department official pushed back on Team Biden’s contention that Garland could have handled the situation differently, saying that if the AG had edited Hur’s reports, he would have had to explain why he did so to Congress.

    Supporters of the president, however, disagree. “I had refused to criticize him, but appointing Hur, who is obviously a Republican tool and who issued what I think is an irresponsible report which violates DOJ standards, was a mistake,” Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant, told Politico. “I think Garland will be criticized by historians. We’ve had some terrific attorneys general and some not-so-good attorneys general. And I think he’s going to rank in the not so good.” And according to one Biden donor, Garland is trying too hard to maintain the appearance of impartiality. “What Democrats do is they bend over backwards not to look partisan, and then they end up hiring people that are partisan but in the other direction,” this person said. “There’s no question in my mind that the villain here is Merrick Garland.”

    Meanwhile, as Robert Kuttner, cofounder of The American Prospect, noted, this whole thing is bigger than just the president and his AG. “If Biden goes down the drain because Garland has mishandled the investigation of Trump and gave Republicans a weapon…then the country pays the price,” he told Politico. “It’s not just that Biden gets punished for the stupidity of appointing Garland.”

    Trump defender Alan Dershowitz says the Hur report on Biden was horses–t

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.





    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Straw Poll Shows Young Trump Voters Want Carlson Or Vivek As VP

    Straw Poll Shows Young Trump Voters Want Carlson Or Vivek As VP

    Opinion

    Screenshot: Donald J Trump YouTube Video

    By Philip Wegmann for RealClearWire

    Young Republican voters overwhelmingly want Donald Trump to be the GOP nominee in 2024, and they only disagree on whether he should choose Tucker Carlson or Vivek Ramaswamy as his running mate, according to a straw poll of participants who attended Turning Point Action’s annual AmericaFest.

    Obtained exclusively by RealClearPolitics, the results provide a snapshot of the youth vote just weeks before the Iowa caucuses. The online poll was conducted by Turning Point Action Dec. 17-18 and surveyed 1,113 attendees at the TPUSA conference in Phoenix, Ariz.

    The results show Trump as the clear favorite with 82.6% of respondents choosing the former president as their first choice. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second with 7.6%, while Vivek Ramaswamy followed closely in third with 5.8%. Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who has garnered national media attention and a recent bump in momentum, finished fifth.

    Barely more than 1%, or 12 voters, at the Trump-friendly event said they preferred Haley compared to the 2.5% who remained “undecided.”

    The topline results are not surprising given that the founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, remains an ardent ally of the former president and previously served as the CEO of Students for Trump. But the survey sheds light on a question currently dominating Trump world.

    When asked whom Trump should choose as his vice president if he wins the nomination, 35%, a plurality, settled on former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. Another 25.7%, meanwhile, preferred Ramaswamy. Both men made headlines with their remarks at the conference.

    Related: Tucker Carlson Finally Reveals If He’d Be Willing to Run As Trump’s Vice President

    Ramaswamy responded from the main stage to criticism from CNN host Van Jones, who called him a demagogue earlier this month. “Just shut the f–k up,” the businessman-turned-politician said to applause. For his part, Carlson downplayed the idea of entering politics himself.

    “It’s like the weather,” the pundit replied when asked about joining the ticket with Trump. “I can’t control it,” Carlson said after floating Ramaswamy instead for VP. “I don’t think I’d be that great at that.”

    On the eve of the primary, the results reflect the policy appetites of the right-leaning youth. Attendees ranked border security and “deporting Biden-era illegal immigrants” as their top priority ahead of “election integrity” and “defunding the deep state,” which ranked second and third. Meanwhile, ending diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives from the government, which has been a calling card of the DeSantis campaign, ranked as their lowest priority.

    Mirroring a larger shift on the right, the survey also shows a youth vote increasingly skeptical of foreign aid to Ukraine but largely supportive of Israel’s war with Hamas. A clear majority, 55.4%, backed giving lethal aid to Tel Aviv, less than 1% supported sending the same to Kyiv, and 39.4% responded that the United States shouldn’t provide such supplies to either Israel or Ukraine.

    Congress generally earns poor approval ratings, but the young Republicans seemed to like newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnson, with 57% either somewhat or strongly approving of his job performance. They were somewhat split, meanwhile, on whether the House should have expelled former New York Rep. George Santos, who made numerous false representations about himself during the previous election.

    While 32% approved of the Santos expulsion, 47% disapproved of the history-making move which had only occurred five times previously.

    Related: Congress Expelled George Santos – Now He’s Spilling The Beans On His Colleagues

    The same week that the House approved an impeachment inquiry of President Biden, 49.6% said that they supported removing him from office. Another 24.3% reported that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas should be impeached, while 15.2% wanted Attorney General Merrick Garland gone.

    As both parties court the youth vote, the survey found that young Republicans in the Turning Point orbit are unsatisfied with RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. An overwhelming 87% said that she should step down, and 56% reported that her departure would make them “more likely” to donate to the party. Charlie Kirk supported Harmeet Dhillon in her unsuccessful challenge of McDaniel earlier this year.

    Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    FREE NEWS ALERTS

    Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.



    By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.

    FREE NEWS ALERTS

    RealClearWire

    Source link

  • Trump judge to oversee Hunter Biden tax case

    Trump judge to oversee Hunter Biden tax case

    Hunter Biden was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday on nine tax-related charges, and the case was assigned to Judge Mark Scarsi, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.

    In a 56-page document filed in a Los Angeles, California, federal court, President Joe Biden‘s son is accused of failing to pay taxes, filing a fraudulent form and evading an assessment. Three of the nine charges are felony counts.

    “The Defendant engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019,” the indictment read, adding Biden “spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills.”

    The charges against Biden were brought by Special Counsel David Weiss, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the investigation into Biden.

    “Between 2016 and October 15, 2020, the Defendant spent this money on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature, in short, everything but his taxes,” the indictment said.

    Reuters reported that Biden faces up to 17 years in prison if convicted of all nine charges. In October, Biden pleaded not guilty to charges that he lied about his drug use while buying a handgun.

    Newsweek contacted a lawyer for Hunter Biden and the White House via email Thursday night for comment.

    President Joe Biden, left, walks next to his son Hunter Biden, right, as they exit Holy Spirit Catholic Church after attending Mass in Johns Island, South Carolina, on August 13, 2022. Hunter Biden on Thursday was indicted on nine tax-related charges.
    Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images

    Scarsi is a native of Syracuse, New York, and he attended Syracuse and Georgetown universities.

    Then-President Trump announced he would nominate Scarsi to serve as a district judge in October 2018. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in September 2020.

    This is a breaking story and will be updated as more information becomes available.