ReportWire

Tag: subpoena

  • Justice Department drops demand for records naming transgender kids treated at Children’s Hospital L.A.

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Department of Justice has agreed to stop demanding medical records that identify young patients who received gender-affirming care from Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, ending a legal standoff with families who sued to block a subpoena that some feared would be used to criminally prosecute the parents of transgender kids.

    The agreement, filed in federal court Thursday, allows the hospital to withhold certain records and redact personal information from others who underwent gender-affirming treatments, which Trump administration officials have compared to child mutilation despite support for such care by the nation’s major medical associations.

    Several parents of CHLA patients expressed profound relief Friday, while also acknowledging that other threats to their families remain.

    Jesse Thorn, the father of two transgender children who had been patients at Children’s Hospital, said hospital officials have ignored his requests for information as to whether they had already shared his kids’ data with the Trump administration, which had been scary. Hearing they had not, and now won’t, provided “two-fold” relief, he said.

    “The escalations have been so relentless in the threats to our family, and one of the things that compounded that was the uncertainty about what the federal government knew about our kids’ medical care and what they were going to do about that,” he said.

    Less clear is whether the agreement provides any new protections for doctors and other hospital personnel who provided care at the clinic and have also been targeted by the Trump administration.

    The agreement follows similar victories for families seeking to block such disclosures by gender-affirming care clinics elsewhere in the country, including a ruling Thursday for the families of transgender kids who received treatment at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C.

    “What’s unique here is this was a class action,” said Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and legal instructor at Harvard, who was not involved in the Los Angeles case. “I can’t undersell what a major win that is to protect the records of all these patients.”

    Some litigation remains ongoing, with families fearful appeals to higher courts could end with different results. There is also Republican-backed legislation moving through Congress to restrict gender-affirming care for youths.

    Another father of a transgender patient at Children’s Hospital, who requested anonymity because he fears for his child’s safety, said he was grateful for the agreement, but doesn’t see it as the end of the road. He fears the Trump administration could renew its subpoena if it wins on appeal in cases elsewhere.

    “There’s some comfort, but it doesn’t close the book on it,” he said.

    In a statement to The Times, the Justice Department said it “has not withdrawn its subpoena. Rather, it withdrew three requests for patient records based on the subpoenaed entity’s representation that it did not have custody of any such records.”

    “This settlement avoids needless litigation based on that fact and further instructs Children’s Hospital Los Angeles to redact patient information in documents responsive to other subpoena requests,” the DOJ statement said. “As Attorney General Bondi has made clear, we will continue to use every legal and law enforcement tool available to protect innocent children from being mutilated under the guise of ‘care.’”

    Children’s Hospital did not respond to a request for comment.

    “This is a massive victory for every family that refused to be intimidated into backing down,” Khadijah Silver, director of Gender Justice & Health Equity at Lawyers for Good Government, which helped bring the lawsuit, said in a statement Friday. “The government’s attempt to rifle through children’s medical records was unconstitutional from the start. Today’s settlement affirms what we’ve said all along: these families have done nothing wrong, and their children’s privacy deserves protection.”

    Until last summer, the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles was among the largest and oldest pediatric gender clinics in the United States — and one of few providing puberty blockers, hormones and surgical procedures for trans youth on public insurance.

    It was also among the first programs to shutter under coordinated, multi-agency pressure exerted from the White House. Ending treatment for transgender children has been a central policy goal for the Trump administration since the president resumed office last year.

    “These threats are no longer theoretical,” Children’s Hospital executives wrote to staff in an internal email announcing the closure of the clinic in June. “[They are] threatening our ability to serve the hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on CHLA for lifesaving care.”

    In July, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced the Justice Department was subpoenaing patient records from gender-affirming care providers, specifically stating that medical professionals were a target of a probe into “organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology.”

    California law explicitly protects gender-affirming care, and the state and others led by Democrats have fought back in court, but most providers nationwide have shuttered under the White House push, stirring fear of a de facto ban.

    Parents feared the subpoenas could lead to child abuse charges, which the government could then use to strip them of custody of their children. Doctors feared they could be arrested and imprisoned for providing medical care that is broadly backed by the medical establishment and is legal in the states where they performed it.

    The Justice Department’s subpoena to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles had initially requested a vast array of personally identifying documents, specially calling for records “sufficient to identify each patient [by name, date of birth, social security number, address, and parent/guardian information] who was prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy.”

    It also called for records “relating to the clinical indications, diagnoses, or assessments that formed the basis for prescribing puberty blockers or hormone therapy,” and for records “relating to informed consent, patient intake, and parent or guardian authorization for minor patients” to receive gender-affirming care.

    According to the new agreement, the Justice Department withdrew its requests for those specific records — which had yet to be produced by the hospital — on Dec. 8, and told Children’s Hospital to redact the personally identifying information of patients in other records it was still demanding.

    Thursday’s agreement formalizes that position, and requires the Justice Department to return or destroy any records that provide personally identifying information moving forward.

    “The Government will not use this patient identifying information to support any investigation or prosecution,” the agreement states.

    According to the attorneys for the families who sued, the settlement protects the records of their clients but also all of the clinic’s other gender-affirming care patients. “To date, they assured us, no identifiable patient information has been received, and now it cannot be,” said Amy Powell, with Lawyers for Good Government.

    Cori Racela, executive director for Western Center on Law & Poverty, called it a “crucial affirmation that healthcare decisions belong in exam rooms, not government subpoenas.”

    “Youth, families, and medical providers have constitutional rights to privacy and dignity,” she said in a statement. “No one’s private health records should be turned into political ammunition — especially children.”

    The agreement was also welcomed by families of transgender kids beyond Southern California.

    “This has been hanging over those families specifically in L.A., of course, but for all families,” said Arne Johnson, a Bay Area father of a transgender child who helps run a group of similar families called Rainbow Families Action. “Every time one of these subpoenas goes out, it’s terrifying.”

    Johnson said each victory pushing back against the government’s demands for family medical records feels “like somebody is pointing a gun at your kid and a hero comes along and knocks it out of their hand — it’s literally that visceral of a feeling.”

    Johnson said he hopes recent court wins will push hospitals to resist canceling care for transgender children.

    “Parents are the ones that are fighting back and they’re the ones that are winning, and the hospitals should take their lead,” he said. “Hospitals should be fighting in the same way the parents are, so that their doctors and other providers can be protected.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector, Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • 10 central banks and global financial institutions back Fed chief Jerome Powell amid DOJ probe

    [ad_1]

    London — The heads of 10 major central banks and global financial institutions threw their collective support behind U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, saying in a joint statement published Tuesday that it was “critical to preserve” the banks’ independence.

    U.S. prosecutors have opened an inquiry into Powell, prompting his rare rebuke against escalating pressure from President Trump’s administration to lower interest rates.

    “We stand in full solidarity with the Federal Reserve System and its Chair Jerome H. Powell,” said the statement signed by heads of the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and others, including the central banks of Australia, Brazil, Canada and South Korea.

    “The independence of central banks is a cornerstone of price, financial and economic stability in the interest of the citizens that we serve. It is therefore critical to preserve that independence, with full respect for the rule of law and democratic accountability. Chair Powell has served with integrity, focused on his mandate and an unwavering commitment to the public interest. To us, he is a respected colleague who is held in the highest regard by all who have worked with him,” the statement said.

    From left, Jerome Powell, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve; Tiff Macklem, governor of the Bank of Canada; and Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, speaking during the Kansas City Federal Reserve’s Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium in Moran, Wyoming, on Aug. 23, 2024.

    Natalie Behring/Bloomberg/Getty


    The Federal Reserve received grand jury subpoenas from the Justice Department on Friday stemming from an investigation into its chair over the cost of building renovations, Powell said in a video statement shared on Sunday.

    The subpoenas threatened a criminal indictment related to Powell’s testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in June 2025, during which he spoke about a multi-year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings, according to Powell.

    He said in his video statement that the move by the Department of Justice should, however, be “seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure.”

    “This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress’ oversight role; the Fed, through testimony and other public disclosures, made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project. Those are pretexts,” said Powell. “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president.”

    Multiple former Fed chairs and Treasury secretaries have also condemned the Trump administration’s probe, as have members of Congress from both parties.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Focus on county’s spending is politically motivated, Orange County Mayor says

    [ad_1]

    Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings has accused Florida’s chief financial officer of political motives behind the recent scrutiny of the county, following subpoenas issued to government employees amid a recent audit. During a news conference on Wednesday, CFO Blaise Ingoglia announced subpoenas involving Orange County employees accused of altering emails related to certain programs.”Upon our team’s arrival, we started receiving those tips that Orange County employees were possibly tampering with documents to circumvent our review of their egregious spending,” Ingoglia said.Ingoglia’s office received a tip from someone within the Orange County government alleging that people were changing the names of DEI files. This comes amid a recent audit alleging excessive spending within the county.16 Orange County employees and six grant programs the county supports are under the state’s microscopeThe Florida CFO wants all records on:The Black History Project, Inc.Central Florida Urban League, Inc.Zebra Youth, Inc.Caribbean Community Connections of Orlando, Inc.Orlando Youth Alliance, Inc.Stono Institute for Freedom, Justice, and Security, Inc.”It’s a critical program. I have no problem if the CFO wants to take a look at the program because we are very confident in what we’ve done,” Jeremy Levitt said.Jeremy Levitt is president of the Stono Institute.He says the program has received under 75,000 dollars over two years, and the grant expired last December.”We need to solve one of the critical issues between citizens and law enforcement. So, what we do is train young people in de-escalation.”” You normally ride around this neighborhood and hang out?” Eatonville Police Chief Stanley Murray said during a role-playing event with Levitt.Levitt teaches de-escalation during a traffic stop by knowing your rights and responsibilities.He says they’re a non-partisan and multi-ethnic racial justice and human rights organization.“We’ve trained entire groups of young white children. We’ve trained entire groups of young black and brown children. It doesn’t make any difference to us.Mayor Demings responded to the allegations on Thursday. He said, “Certainly, from a county perspective, we fully cooperated with the DOGE inquiry that was being done here. They didn’t talk to me, but they talked to our staff. And what our staff has said is that they answered whatever questions and provided whatever information was requested of them.”Demings believes the state has not shown any evidence to support the allegations and claims the county has been tried and convicted before the investigation is complete. “This community is a target. This is not about Orange County, and this is not about the employees. This is politically motivated for other reasons,” he said.Demings urged the public to “stand by” as the situation becomes clearer, emphasizing that the attacks are occurring on “good, hard-working people here within Orange County.” Ingoglia says after interviewing county employees, if more subpoenas need to be issued, he will.

    Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings has accused Florida’s chief financial officer of political motives behind the recent scrutiny of the county, following subpoenas issued to government employees amid a recent audit.

    During a news conference on Wednesday, CFO Blaise Ingoglia announced subpoenas involving Orange County employees accused of altering emails related to certain programs.

    “Upon our team’s arrival, we started receiving those tips that Orange County employees were possibly tampering with documents to circumvent our review of their egregious spending,” Ingoglia said.

    Ingoglia’s office received a tip from someone within the Orange County government alleging that people were changing the names of DEI files. This comes amid a recent audit alleging excessive spending within the county.

    16 Orange County employees and six grant programs the county supports are under the state’s microscope

    The Florida CFO wants all records on:

    • The Black History Project, Inc.
    • Central Florida Urban League, Inc.
    • Zebra Youth, Inc.
    • Caribbean Community Connections of Orlando, Inc.
    • Orlando Youth Alliance, Inc.
    • Stono Institute for Freedom, Justice, and Security, Inc.

    “It’s a critical program. I have no problem if the CFO wants to take a look at the program because we are very confident in what we’ve done,” Jeremy Levitt said.

    Jeremy Levitt is president of the Stono Institute.

    He says the program has received under 75,000 dollars over two years, and the grant expired last December.

    “We need to solve one of the critical issues between citizens and law enforcement. So, what we do is train young people in de-escalation.”

    ” You normally ride around this neighborhood and hang out?” Eatonville Police Chief Stanley Murray said during a role-playing event with Levitt.

    Levitt teaches de-escalation during a traffic stop by knowing your rights and responsibilities.

    He says they’re a non-partisan and multi-ethnic racial justice and human rights organization.

    “We’ve trained entire groups of young white children. We’ve trained entire groups of young black and brown children. It doesn’t make any difference to us.

    Mayor Demings responded to the allegations on Thursday.

    He said, “Certainly, from a county perspective, we fully cooperated with the DOGE inquiry that was being done here. They didn’t talk to me, but they talked to our staff. And what our staff has said is that they answered whatever questions and provided whatever information was requested of them.”

    Demings believes the state has not shown any evidence to support the allegations and claims the county has been tried and convicted before the investigation is complete.

    “This community is a target. This is not about Orange County, and this is not about the employees. This is politically motivated for other reasons,” he said.

    Demings urged the public to “stand by” as the situation becomes clearer, emphasizing that the attacks are occurring on “good, hard-working people here within Orange County.”

    Ingoglia says after interviewing county employees, if more subpoenas need to be issued, he will.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NYPD phones subpoenaed, FBI raids homes of 2 of Mayor Eric Adams’ top deputies

    NYPD phones subpoenaed, FBI raids homes of 2 of Mayor Eric Adams’ top deputies

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (WABC) — The FBI conducted searches at the homes of two of New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ closest aides, sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News, and subpoenaed the cellphones of at least seven people in the NYPD.

    The Hamilton Heights home of First Deputy Mayor Sheena Wright and the Hollis, Queens home of Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Phil Banks were searched as part of an ongoing investigation, the sources said.

    The searches began Wednesday morning but news broke of the raids on Thursday afternoon. It is likely they both occurred at dawn Wednesday.

    The FBI seized evidence, including electronics from Wright, as part of the searches, according to sources.

    Wright shares her Hamilton Heights home with her partner, Schools Chancellor David Banks, who is the brother of Phil Banks.

    No charges have been filed and the investigation continues by the FBI and U.S. Attorneys Office in Lower Manhattan.

    Wright and Banks are the highest-ranking Adams administration officials to have their homes searched by federal investigators.

    In total, seven people in the NYPD received subpoenas for their phones, which they turned over, an official said.

    At least four were NYPD executives, the rank of captains or above. At least three others in the NYPD also had their phones subpoenaed.

    An NYPD spokesperson released the following statement:

    “The Department is aware of an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York involving members of service. The Department is fully cooperating in the investigation. Any questions regarding the investigation should be directed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”

    Federal agents have previously raided the homes of several other associates of Mayor Adams, who turned over his own electronic devices to the FBI.

    “I think the most important thing that I must do is to send the right message to my team and all the employees in the city, we’re going to comply with whatever rules, and we’re going to follow the law, and we’re going to make sure that whatever information is needed, we’re going to turn over that information, and that is what we have been doing since the beginning,” Adams said.

    Federal officials have previously executed search warrants at the homes of:

    • Rana Abbasova, the mayor’s international affairs aide
    • Winnie Greco, a special adviser to the mayor and director of Asian affairs

    Adams reiterated that he is not aware of “any wrongdoings or misgivings” from anyone on his team and they will continue to cooperate.

    “I wake up every morning with the same feeling, commit yourself to the city, and for the entire years of my life, I follow the rules and procedures,” Adams said. “And you know, I’m confident that everything is reviewed. We’re going to comply with whatever information that’s needed and to make sure that this has come to a completion.”

    The mayor’s chief counsel Lisa Zornberg released a statement saying: “Investigators have not indicated to us the mayor or his staff are targets of any investigation. As a former member of law enforcement, the mayor has repeatedly made clear that all members of the team need to follow the law.”

    A source familiar with the matter said the searches do not appear to be related to the investigation into whether Adams accepted donations from Turkey in exchange for official favors.

    The FBI declined to comment and a spokesman for the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.

    ———-

    * Get Eyewitness News Delivered

    * More New York City news

    * Send us a news tip

    * Download the abc7NY app for breaking news alerts

    * Follow us on YouTube

    Submit a tip or story idea to Eyewitness News

    Have a breaking news tip or an idea for a story we should cover? Send it to Eyewitness News using the form below. If attaching a video or photo, terms of use apply.

    Copyright © 2024 WABC-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WABC

    Source link

  • After years-long fight, ex-sheriff agrees to comply with subpoenas, testify on deputy gangs

    After years-long fight, ex-sheriff agrees to comply with subpoenas, testify on deputy gangs

    [ad_1]

    After years of resisting subpoenas to testify under oath about deputy gangs, former Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has reversed course and agreed to appear in front of the Civilian Oversight Commission.

    His lawyer notified the commission of the decision in a December letter stating that Villanueva “is very willing to testify” in January and that he will “answer any question you have under oath.”

    The change of heart comes days after a county judge scheduled a hearing to decide whether to order the former sheriff, who is running for county supervisor against incumbent Janice Hahn, to comply with the commission’s subpoenas.

    Villanueva did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But his attorney, Linda Savitt, confirmed in an email to The Times last week that her client plans to follow through and appear in front of the commission next month.

    “He is going to testify under oath,” she wrote. “He’s a private citizen now.”

    Despite Savitt’s assurances, Sean Kennedy — who chairs the oversight commission — expressed some skepticism, pointing out that the former sheriff “said he was going to appear once before and then announced on Twitter that he wasn’t going to.”

    Earlier this year, the commission’s special counsel issued a 70-page report condemning the “cancer” of violent deputy gangs and urging Sheriff Robert Luna to create a stronger policy banning the secretive groups.

    The report’s findings and recommendations relied heavily on testimony from a series of seven public hearings, many of which involved witnesses testifying under oath. Despite being subpoenaed, Villanueva and former Undersheriff Tim Murakami both refused to testify at the hearings.

    The legal wrangling began in 2020, after the Board of Supervisors granted the commission subpoena power, which voters then affirmed by approving Measure R. A few months later, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law granting subpoena power to oversight bodies statewide.

    That same year, the commission issued a subpoena directing the sheriff to testify about his response to COVID-19 inside the jails. Villanueva questioned the legality of the subpoena, which he called a “public shaming endeavor.” The dispute ended up in court, but Villanueva avoided a contempt hearing by agreeing to answer the commission’s questions voluntarily.

    Afterward, oversight officials issued more subpoenas, and Villanueva resisted them, resulting in multiple court cases.

    In one of those cases, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elaine Lu scheduled a contempt hearing for late last year, but called it off after Villanueva’s lawyers asked a higher court to step in.

    The former sheriff’s legal counsel argued that the 2020 legislation Newsom signed described a two-step process and that the judge first needed to issue an order directing Villanueva to comply with the subpoena. Only if he ignored that could he be found in contempt, his lawyer said.

    In September, an appeals court agreed. This month, lawyers for the county embarked on the two-step process by asking for a hearing so a judge could decide whether to order Villanueva and Murakami to comply with the subpoenas.

    Less than two weeks later, Villanueva’s lawyer sent the oversight commission’s Kennedy a letter about the former sheriff’s willingness to testify in January. Unlike Villanueva, Murakami has not given any indication of a newfound willingness to speak to the commission, Kennedy told The Times.

    Previously, the former undersheriff has cited a medical condition as his reason for refusing to testify. His attorney did not respond to The Times’ request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Keri Blakinger

    Source link

  • GOP-led House committees subpoena Hunter Biden and James Biden

    GOP-led House committees subpoena Hunter Biden and James Biden

    [ad_1]

    House Republicans issued three subpoenas Thursday for Hunter Biden and James Biden’s personal and business banking records, as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, an escalation in their investigation of the Biden family’s business dealings. 

    The latest subpoenas come after the GOP-led House Oversight Committee held its first impeachment inquiry hearing into President Biden Thursday, focusing on Republican allegations of “constitutional and legal questions surrounding the President’s involvement in corruption and abuse of public office,” according to a committee spokesperson. Three House committees are looking into whether Mr. Biden “abused his federal office to enrich his family and conceal his and/or his family’s misconduct,” according to a memo written by the Republican chairs of the House Oversight, Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees that outlined the view of the factual and legal basis for the inquiry.

    “The subpoenaed bank records will help the Committees determine whether Joe Biden abused his office by selling access and/or by receiving payments or other benefits in exchange for official acts,” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan said in a letter accompanying the subpoenas.

    Mr. Biden has denied any involvement in his son’s foreign work. 

    “I have not taken a penny from any foreign source, ever, in my life,” Mr. Biden said in October 2020 at a presidential debate.

    The two chairmen said they’re concerned that Hunter Biden and other Biden family members “sought to conceal the source of foreign income by having lucrative wires sent to Biden associates’ accounts, instead of their own accounts,” and added, “We believe these records will provide insight as to where the foreign money was finally sent.”

    Hunter Biden attorney Abbe Lowell did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and neither did attorneys for James Biden.

    Last year, Senate Republicans scrutinized James Biden’s business ventures, releasing records that showed payments James Biden’s company, The Lion Hall Group, received from a Chinese-financed consulting group in 2018, and monthly retainers to James and Hunter Biden.  

    Hunter Biden’s foreign business affairs have been at the center of the investigations led by congressional Republicans. Comer released a series of memorandums earlier this year with bank records detailing millions in payments received by Hunter Biden and his associates from foreign entities during Joe Biden’s vice presidency, alleging the president was aware of his son’s business dealings and “allowed himself to be ‘the brand’ sold to enrich the Biden family.” 

    In closed-door testimony before the House Oversight Committee in July, Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s former business associate, who served with him on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, said Hunter Biden sought to use the Biden brand for leverage in his business dealings, but he said he had no knowledge of any direct involvement by President Biden with Burisma. Archer also testified that Hunter Biden placed his father on a speaker phone call with a business associate during a dinner meeting in Beijing, but Joe Biden did not discuss business.

    Ian Sams, White House spokesman for oversight and investigations, said Congressional Republicans were using the probe to distract from a potential government shutdown, and called the impeachment inquiry “nothing more than a baseless wild goose chase,” in a post to X, formerly known as Twitter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arizona secretary of state’s office subpoenaed in special counsel’s 2020 election investigation

    Arizona secretary of state’s office subpoenaed in special counsel’s 2020 election investigation

    [ad_1]

    Washington — The Arizona secretary of state’s office received and complied with a subpoena from special counsel Jack Smith’s office related to the federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, spokesperson Paul Smith-Leonard confirmed to CBS News.

    The subpoena requested documents related to a pair of election-related lawsuits filed in 2020 by the Trump campaign and the former head of Arizona’s Republican party, Kelli Ward. Contact between Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ office and Smith’s team began in May and an outside counsel hired by the office — Coppersmith Brockelman — responded to the grand jury request, said Smith-Leonard.

    The Arizona Republic first reported the existence of the subpoena. 

    The 2020 battleground state became a focal point of former President Donald Trump and his supporters’ attempts to reverse the results of the presidential election. 

    Prosecutors in Smith’s office continue to examine an alleged fake electors scheme in which supporters of the former president worked to overturn the certification of the electoral college votes, which were won by President Biden, via an alternate group of swing-state representatives pledging support to Trump.

    As part of the federal probe, Georgia’s Secretary of State — Brad Raffenspereger — spoke with investigators last month and representatives from Nevada appeared before a grand jury in Washington, D.C.

    On Wednesday, former Arizona Republican Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers — who publicly testified before the House Jan. 6 committee last year about his resisting pressure from Trump and his allies to overturn election results — told CNN he recently spoke with Smith’s investigators. 

    The subpoena of the Arizona Secretary of State was the second received by the office in recent months connected to the federal probe, according to a person familiar with the matter. The first request came last year, during the administration of Arizona’s previous secretary of state, and was processed by the same outside law firm that has handled much of the office’s responses to 2020-related matters. 

    Smith’s office declined to comment. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Special counsel asks judge to compel Pence to comply with subpoena in Jan. 6 investigation

    Special counsel asks judge to compel Pence to comply with subpoena in Jan. 6 investigation

    [ad_1]

    Special counsel asks judge to compel Pence to comply with subpoena in Jan. 6 investigation – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Federal prosecutors have asked a judge to compel former Vice President Mike Pence to comply with a subpeona in its investigation of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Grand jury probes faulty Goodyear tires blamed for 8 deaths

    Grand jury probes faulty Goodyear tires blamed for 8 deaths

    [ad_1]

    A federal grand jury in Los Angeles is gathering evidence in a criminal investigation of Goodyear recreational vehicle tires that the government blames for crashes that killed eight people and injured dozens of others.

    The grand jury has subpoenaed Arizona lawyer David Kurtz seeking all documents and deposition transcripts in a lawsuit he filed against the Akron, Ohio, tire maker.

    A letter accompanying the Jan. 4 subpoena says it was issued in an “official criminal investigation being conducted by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General.” It also says the Justice Department’s Consumer Protection Branch in Washington is involved, as well as the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles.

    Documents from Kurtz’s lawsuit touched off a 2017 investigation of the tires by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that resulted in a recall last year. The documents also revealed Goodyear knew the G159 RV tire could fail and cause severe crashes, yet it didn’t recall them for as many as 20 years.

    The Justice Department and the DOT Inspector General wouldn’t comment on the probe.

    In a statement, Goodyear didn’t address the federal investigation, but maintained there’s no safety defect with the tires. The company said it recalled the tires to address risks that happen when they are underinflated or overloaded.

    “This tire hasn’t been made since 2003,” the statement said, adding that “it consistently met Goodyear’s demanding safety standards.”

    Kurtz confirmed that he received the subpoena and provided copies of it and the accompanying letter. He said Thursday he intends to comply and produce about 200,000 documents he gathered from suing Goodyear.

    The DOT Inspector General says on its website its agents have federal law enforcement authority to conduct criminal investigations, including the ability to make arrests, execute search warrants and carry firearms. “Where appropriate, we make referrals for prosecution to the Department of Justice or state and local prosecuting authorities,” the office said in a statement.

    Loss of control

    It’s not clear exactly what the grand jury is investigating. But in a letter to Goodyear seeking the recall last year, NHTSA said the company should have recalled the tires within five working days of becoming aware of a defect, which it apparently knew of as early as 2002.

    “The safety-related defect is a clear, identified failure that leads to a loss of vehicle control, causing crashes and potentially catastrophic consequences such as death and serious injury,” NHTSA wrote in the letter.

    Documents from the safety agency say the tire tread can separate from the body, causing drivers to lose control and increasing the risk of a crash.

    Goodyear wouldn’t recall the tires even as late as March of last year, despite investigators finding that their failure caused crashes that killed eight people and injured 69 others from 1998 through 2009.

    NHTSA made the allegations against Goodyear in a February 2022 letter sent to the company seeking a recall of 22.5-inch-diameter G159 tires.

    Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. responded to the agency in a March 8 letter refusing to do a recall, but later it decided to conduct one, according to NHTSA documents.

    NHTSA had threatened a public hearing and court action if the tires weren’t recalled. Goodyear then agreed to recall about 173,000 tires.

    In its response letter, Goodyear maintained that the tires were rigorously tested and fully qualified to operate at highway speeds. “No subject tire inspected by Goodyear engineers ever revealed or even suggested a defect of any kind,” the company wrote.

    “Extraordinary failure rate”

    NHTSA presented a detailed timeline of what Goodyear knew when, based on an investigation into the tires that began in 2017. It also said the company routinely settled lawsuits and got judges to seal the information, keeping it from NHTSA and other plaintiffs’ lawyers.

    “NHTSA was not alerted to the extraordinary failure rate of the subject tires” until documents were released in an Arizona case in 2017, the letter said.

    After the recall was announced, NHTSA, which is part of the Transportation Department, said it was closing its investigation but reserved the right to take further action as warranted.

    Goodyear has said few if any of the tires are still in use. As of Jan. 13, the company had replaced only 13 of the tires, according to NHTSA documents.

    News of the investigation was reported Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal.

    Kurtz said he’s happy that the government seems to be moving on the investigation.

    “Better late than never,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Dept subpoenas county election officials for Trump communications

    Justice Dept subpoenas county election officials for Trump communications

    [ad_1]

    Special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed local election officials in Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin for communications with former President Donald Trump, his campaign and several lawyers and allies associated with his 2020 presidential campaign.

    The requests are dated Nov. 22, according to election officials in Maricopa, Dane and Milwaukee Counties, who confirmed the request for documents to CBS News. These subpoenas mark some of the first issued by Smith, who was appointed last month by Attorney General Merrick Garland to oversee the investigation into events surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

    Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell, of Wisconsin, confirmed that he received a subpoena. 

    He told CBS News his office would comply with the subpoena by the end of the day. McDonell says his only interaction with the Trump campaign was Jim Troupis, a lawyer who ran the former president’s recount effort in Wisconsin.

    “We had someone transcribe all [communications] during the recount, so there’s some things in there that potentially might be of interest,” said McDonell. “I don’t know. But it’s not new.”

    Fields Moseley, a spokesman for Maricopa County, confirmed to CBS News, “We have received a subpoena and will comply.” 

    Election officials said the request essentially works the same way as a Freedom of Information Act request but is obviously “ordered by the court.” All three county officials expressed their willingness to comply immediately. 

    Eddie Cullen, spokesperson for Milwaukee County, confirmed receipt of the subpoena, and Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson plans to hold a news conference later Tuesday afternoon. 

    The Washington Post was first to report the subpoenas.  

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump files lawsuit to avoid Jan. 6 committee subpoena

    Trump files lawsuit to avoid Jan. 6 committee subpoena

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump is suing the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to block a subpoena requiring him to testify.

    The lawsuit filed Friday alleges that the subpoena “is invalid, unlawful, and unenforceable because President Trump, as a former president of the United States, has absolute immunity from being compelled to testify before Congress or a committee thereof regarding his actions as head of a co-equal branch of government.”

    It also argues that while other presidents “voluntarily agreed to testify or turn over documents in response to a congressional subpoena, no president or former president has ever been compelled to do so.”

    In a statement provided to CBS News Friday night, Trump attorney David A. Warrington said that: “Long held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a president to testify before it.”

    He said the former president had “engaged with the committee in a good faith effort to resolve these concerns consistent with Executive Branch prerogatives and separation of powers,” but said the panel “insists on pursuing a political path, leaving President Trump with no choice but to involve the third branch, the judicial branch, in this dispute between the executive and legislative branches.”

    The committee voted to subpoena Trump during its final hearing before the midterm elections and formally did so last month, demanding testimony from the former president. Committee member members allege Trump “personally orchestrated” a multi-part effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    They said Trump had to testify, either at the Capitol or by videoconference, “beginning on or about” Nov. 14 and continuing for multiple days if necessary.

    The letter also outlined a sweeping request for documents, including personal communications between Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups.

    The lawsuit comes as Trump is expected to launch a third campaign for president next week.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals court rules Lindsey Graham must testify in Georgia election probe

    Appeals court rules Lindsey Graham must testify in Georgia election probe

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham must testify before a special grand jury investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia, a federal appeals court said Thursday.

    The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paves the way for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to bring Graham in for questioning. She wants to ask the South Carolina Republican about phone calls he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the weeks after the election.

    Raffensperger said Graham asked whether he had the power to reject certain absentee ballots, something Raffensperger took as a suggestion to toss out legally cast votes. Graham has dismissed that interpretation as “ridiculous.”

    Graham could appeal the ruling to the full appellate court. An attorney for Graham deferred comment Thursday to a spokesperson for the senator’s office, which did not immediately comment on the ruling.

    Graham had challenged his subpoena, saying his position as a U.S. senator protected him from having to testify in the state investigation. He has also denied wrongdoing. In a six-page order, the judges wrote that Graham “has failed to demonstrate that this approach will violate his rights under the Speech and Debate Clause.”

    Willis opened the investigation early last year, shortly after a recording of a January 2021 phone call between Trump and Raffensperger was made public. In that call, Trump suggested Raffensperger could “find” the votes needed to overturn his narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

    Willis requested a special grand jury, saying the panel’s subpoena power would allow the questioning of people who otherwise wouldn’t cooperate with the investigation. She has since filed several rounds of paperwork with the court seeking to compel the testimony of close Trump advisers and associates.

    Some of those associates include former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who has testified before the special grand jury, according to a person familiar with Cipollone’s testimony who spoke to The Associated Press on Thursday on condition of anonymity to discuss a private appearance. Cipollone’s appearance was first reported by CNN.

    Cipollone vigorously resisted efforts to undo the election and has said he did not believe there was sufficient fraud to have affected the outcome of the race won by Biden.

    Graham was in the first group of people close to Trump whose testimony Willis sought to compel in a batch of petitions filed with the court in early July. He challenged his subpoena in federal court, but U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May refused to toss out his subpoena. Graham then appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Graham’s lawyers argued that the U.S. Constitution’s speech or debate clause, which protects members of Congress from having to answer questions about legislative activity, shields him from having to testify. He contends that the call he made to Raffensperger fare was protected because he was asking questions to inform his decisions on voting to certify the 2020 election and future legislation.

    Lawyers on Willis’ team argued that comments Graham made in news interviews at the time, as well as statements by Raffensperger, show that the senator was motivated by politics rather than by legislative factfinding.

    They also argued that the scope of the special grand jury’s investigation includes a variety of other topics that have nothing to do with the Raffensperger call. They also want to ask Graham about his briefings by the Trump campaign, including whether he was briefed on the Trump-Raffensperger call, and whether he communicated or coordinated with Trump and his campaign about efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia and elsewhere.

    Graham’s lawyers also argued that the principle of “sovereign immunity” protects a U.S. senator from being summoned by a state prosecutor.

    Even if the speech or debate clause or sovereign immunity didn’t apply, Graham’s lawyers argued, his status as a “high-ranking official” protects him from having to testify. That’s because Willis has failed to show that his testimony is essential and that the information he would provide cannot be obtained from someone else, they argued.

    In their ruling Thursday, the appellate judges ruled that Willis “can ask about non-investigatory conduct that falls within the subpoena’s scope” but “may not ask about any investigatory conduct,” noting that Graham could note any issues over specific areas at the time of his questioning.

    Others have already made their appearances before the special grand jury. Former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who’s been told he could face criminal charges in the probe, testified in August. Attorneys John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro have also appeared before the panel.

    Paperwork has been filed seeking testimony from others, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

    Associated Press writers Kate Brumback in Atlanta and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump skirts testimony in 14-page Jan. 6 response

    Trump skirts testimony in 14-page Jan. 6 response

    [ad_1]

    Trump skirts testimony in 14-page Jan. 6 response – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Former President Donald Trump sent a response to the Jan. 6 committee after they unanimously voted to issue him a subpoena. Trump attacked the panel in the 14-page letter, calling them “political hacks and thugs” and repeated his false claims of election fraud. Scott MacFarlane has the latest.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What’s next after the Jan. 6 committee’s vote to subpoena Trump

    What’s next after the Jan. 6 committee’s vote to subpoena Trump

    [ad_1]

    The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol unanimously voted to subpoena former President Trump for his testimony and records, the culmination of months of witness interviews, evidence analysis and public hearings. 

    What happens next?

    He has not yet been issued a subpoena. That will come from the Jan. 6 committee’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, likely in a matter of days. 

    Other Trump allies have also received subpoenas, including his former chief White House strategist, Stephen Bannon, law professor John Eastman and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. While some were interviewed by the committee, others, including Eastman and Flynn, appeared to decline to answer many of the committee’s questions by invoking the Fifth Amendment.

    Should Trump choose to defy the subpoena, the committee would need to secure a majority vote by the full House of Representatives to refer to the Justice Department a misdemeanor charge of refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. Bannon and another former top aide, Peter Navarro, defied their subpoenas and were referred to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress. Bannon has been tried and convicted, and he is to be sentenced on Oct. 21. Navarro’s trial is scheduled to begin in November.

    Trump responded Friday to the committee’s vote, writing a letter that falsely insisted the election had been “rigged” and “stolen” but did not address whether he would comply with the subpoena. 

    It’s likely he will challenge the select committee’s subpoena. In the past, he has asked the federal courts to intervene in efforts by congressional Democrats to obtain his tax returns and financial records, as well as the select committee’s attempt to get Trump’s White House records from the National Archives and Records Administration.

    In January, the Supreme Court turned down Trump’s request to block the release of his White House documents, and the committee received the records soon after.

    While the committee held its meeting Thursday, the Supreme Court also declined a request from Trump for it to intervene in a dispute over documents he brought with him from the White House to his South Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago, at the end of his presidency in Jan. 2021. 

    The committee is on a tight deadline and must wrap up its work before the end of the year, constraining how much it might be able to accomplish before then. 

    It plans to issue its final report 30 days before the timeline for its work expires, meaning that report could come in the next month or two, CBS News congressional correspondent Scott McFarlane has noted. 

    On Thursday, in what was likely the panel’s final hearing, members of the committee each presented part of its case against Trump, including witness testimony describing how Trump was told he could not win, his acknowledgment on several occasions that he had not won, his pursuit of his false claims of a stolen election anyway and his failure for hours to call off his supporters as they stormed the Capitol and endangered members of Congress and his own vice president. 

    “He must be accountable. He is required to answer for his actions,” Thompson said Thursday. “He is required to answer for those police officers who put their lives and bodies on the line to defend our democracy. He is required to answer to those millions of Americans whose votes he wanted to throw out as part of his scheme to remain in power.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Breaking down the Jan. 6 committee’s final hearing

    Breaking down the Jan. 6 committee’s final hearing

    [ad_1]

    Breaking down the Jan. 6 committee’s final hearing – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    John Dickerson joins “CBS Mornings” to talk about the Jan. 6 committee’s final hearing and the decision to vote to subpoena former President Trump.

    Be the first to know

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


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jan. 6 select committee votes to subpoena Trump for testimony, documents in connection with Capitol assault

    Jan. 6 select committee votes to subpoena Trump for testimony, documents in connection with Capitol assault

    [ad_1]

    Washington — The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol unanimously voted Thursday to issue a subpoena to former President Donald Trump for documents and testimony.

    The 9-0 vote occurred before the conclusion of a formal committee business meeting the panel convened Thursday, during which all of its nine members delivered presentations about the campaign by Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent the transfer of power. NBC News was first to report the news of the committee’s plans to vote on subpoenaing Trump.

    “Thanks to the tireless work of our members and investigators, we have left no doubt, none, that Donald Trump led an effort to upend American democracy that directly resulted in the violence of Jan. 6,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s chairman. “He tried to take away the voice of the American people in choosing their president and replace the will of the voters with his will to remain in power. He is the one person at the center of the story of what happened on Jan. 6. So we want to hear from him.” 

    Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, said it is the committee’s “obligation” to seek Trump’s testimony.

    House January 6 Committee Holds Public Hearing
    Representative Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi and chairman of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, center, speaks during a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 13, 2022.

    Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images


    “This is a question about accountability to the American people. He must be accountable,” he continued. “He is required to answer for his actions. He is required to answer to those police officers who put their lives and bodies on the line to defend our democracy. He is required to answer to the millions of Americans whose votes he wanted to throw out as part of his scheme to remain in power. And whatever is underway to ensure his accountability under the law, this committee will demand a full accounting to the American people of the events of January 6th.”

    Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee’s vice chair, offered the resolution that the committee direct the chairman to issue the subpoena to Trump for documents and testimony in connection with the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol building.

    “Our duty today is to our country, and our children, and our Constitution,” she said. “We are obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set this all in motion. And we are entitled to the answers today, so we can act now to protect our republic.”

    In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump questioned why the select committee did not ask him to testify sooner.

    “Why did they wait until the very end, the final moments of their last meeting? Because the Committee is a total ‘BUST’ that has only served to further divide our Country which, by the way, is doing very badly — A laughing stock all over the World?” he wrote.

    Thompson told reporters ahead of the proceedings that the committee had “not ruled out” subpoenaing Trump.  While delivering an opening statement at the start of the hearing, he noted it was a formal committee business meeting, allowing members to “potentially hold a committee vote on further investigative action based upon that evidence.”

    The vote to compel the former president to provide evidence is a dramatic escalation in the committee’s investigation, across which the panel conducted more than 1,000 interviews and depositions, including with a range of White House officials, members of Trump’s Cabinet, and campaign aides. Thompson noted the gravity of the decision to subpoena Trump, calling it “a serious and extraordinary action” that warranted a vote in public view. 

    Committee members repeatedly said over the course of its probe publicly they were weighing whether to ask Vice President Mike Pence to appear before them, but had not yet decided whether to do so. But asked whether the committee would subpoena the former vice president, Thompson on Thursday said “no.” Before Thursday they also had not yet said whether they had decided to issue a subpoena to the former president.

    Trump will likely challenge the select committee’s subpoena. In the past, he has asked the federal courts to intervene in efforts by the congressional Democrats to obtain his tax returns and financial records, as well as the select committee’s attempt to get Trump’s White House records from the National Archives and Records Administration.

    In January, the Supreme Court turned down Trump’s request to block the release of his White House documents, and the committee received the records soon after. Only Justice Clarence Thomas noted he would have granted Trump’s request to shield the records from House investigators. 

    As the committee held it’s meeting Thursday, the Supreme Court declined a request from Trump for it to intervene in a dispute over documents he brought with him from the White House to his South Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago, at the end of his presidency in Jan. 2021. There were no noted dissents.

    Over the course of its year-long investigation, the select committee mapped out what it has described as the multi-pronged effort by the former president to stay in office despite losing the 2020 election to President Biden.

    Those efforts, which were rooted in his baseless claims the election was rife with voter fraud, culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

    House investigators held eight public hearings through the summer, with Thursday’s proceeding, their ninth, likely to be its last. Cheney said during opening remarks that the focus of the meeting is Trump’s “state of mind, his intent, his motivations, and how he spurred others to do his bidding.” 

    “The vast weight of evidence presented so far has shown us that the central cause of Jan. 6 was one man, Donald Trump, who many others followed,” she said. “None of this would have happened without him. He was personally and substantially involved in all of it.” 

    In her final remarks before the vote on the subpoena to Trump, Cheney said the committee has “sufficient information” to answer questions about the Jan. 6 assault, as well as “sufficient information” to consider criminal referrals to several people.

    “But,” she said, “a key task remains: We must seek the testimony under oath of January 6th’s central player.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link