ReportWire

Tag: Subpoenas

  • Bill and Hillary Clinton face House showdown over Epstein ties

    [ad_1]

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein filesDuring his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.“It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.“Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”Bill Clinton’s ties to EpsteinBy last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercelyAs each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.“We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.Conservative attacks on the ClintonsThe Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.“Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.Still, some dynamics have changed.The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.“It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    WASHINGTON —

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.

    For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.

    The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.

    Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein files

    During his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

    For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.

    “It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

    But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.

    “Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”

    Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein

    By last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.

    Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.

    The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.

    The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.

    Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”

    The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercely

    As each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.

    Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.

    Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.

    That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.

    “We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.

    Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.

    One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.

    Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”

    Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.

    Conservative attacks on the Clintons

    The Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.

    “Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.

    Still, some dynamics have changed.

    The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.

    He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”

    Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.

    “It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bill and Hillary Clinton face House showdown over Epstein ties

    [ad_1]

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein filesDuring his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.“It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.“Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”Bill Clinton’s ties to EpsteinBy last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercelyAs each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.“We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.Conservative attacks on the ClintonsThe Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.“Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.Still, some dynamics have changed.The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.“It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    WASHINGTON —

    For some of their conservative critics, this is the scandal that could finally topple them. Their resistance to testifying proved futile. And now, staring down another epic fight, they’re harnessing their considerable political skills to try to turn the tables on their accusers.

    For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the 1990s are back.

    The Clintons are slated to testify Thursday and Friday in a House investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, part of a deal with Republicans after it became clear that Congress — with the help of some Democrats — was on track to hold them in contempt if they refused to cooperate. For the battle-hardened couple, it amounts to one more Washington brawl. And like so many of the battles that came before, this one is another mix of questionable judgment, sexual impropriety, money and power.

    Video above: Justice Department releases more than 3 million items in final batch of Epstein files

    During his 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton pitched his candidacy as “two for the price of one,” previewing a presidential marriage like none that had come before, with a spouse whose professional credentials rivaled his. In the years since, that partnership helped the Clintons weather repeated scandals, including those so personal that many other relationships would have shattered. When his political career was ending, hers was ascending when she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, then served as secretary of state before becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

    For those who have long watched the Clintons, this moment is a reminder that the couple — weaned on the politics of the Vietnam War and Watergate — has never been far from the heat of a cultural fight. And with the Epstein case unfolding unpredictably around the world, the Clintons are once again ensnared in the scandal of the moment.

    “It’s kind of a sad but fitting coda to extraordinary political lives,” said David Maraniss, who has written two biographies of Bill Clinton.

    There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Clinton when it comes to Epstein, a convicted sex offender who committed suicide in 2019 while he was in jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

    But Epstein had ties to Bill Clinton for years, visiting the White House multiple times in the 1990s, according to visitor logs. After Clinton left office, Epstein was involved in his philanthropy and the former president flew multiple times on his private jet.

    “Traveling on Epstein’s plane was not worth the years of questioning afterward,” Bill Clinton wrote in his 2024 memoir. “I wish I had never met him.”

    Bill Clinton’s ties to Epstein

    By last summer, the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas for the Clintons. For months, Bill Clinton, 79, and Hillary Clinton, 78, largely ignored the matter in public, but that became harder to sustain in December when the former president was featured prominently in the first batch of Epstein files.

    Among thousands of documents made public, some photos showed him on a private plane, including one with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated alongside him with her arm around him. Another showed Bill Clinton in a pool with Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and a person whose face was redacted. Yet another photo portrayed Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman whose face was redacted.

    The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn’t comply with the subpoenas, a historic move considering a former president has never been compelled to appear before Congress. Between his first and second terms, Donald Trump invoked that precedent to fend off a subpoena from the committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    While there was no context surrounding the photos of Bill Clinton, they underscored how his political promise has always been tempered by personal indiscretions.

    The 1992 campaign that represented the emerging preeminence of the Baby Boom generation was the same one dogged by rumors of an affair with Gennifer Flowers. A presidency largely defined by economic prosperity was nearly derailed when Clinton was impeached in 1998 for lying under oath and obstructing justice when he denied engaging in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

    Each time, many Republicans thought they finally found leverage over the Clintons. But each time, the Clintons found a way out of the vise.

    Asa Hutchinson, the former Republican congressman from Arkansas who was a House manager during Clinton’s impeachment trial, described the couple as “a smart lawyer and brilliant communicator.”

    The Clinton playbook: fight back fiercely

    As each crisis surfaced, a pattern emerged: the Clintons fiercely denied the allegations and often dismissed women who came forward with claims. They villainized the GOP and re-centered the public’s attention on more favorable themes like the booming economy of the era.

    Bill Clinton, who famously told voters “I feel your pain,” always managed to stay connected with the public. Indeed, he enjoyed some of the highest approval numbers of his presidency during his impeachment inquiry and trial, when about 7 in 10 U.S. adults approved of the way he was handling his job.

    Hillary Clinton similarly dispatched Republicans who sensed an opening in her handling of a 2012 attack on a compound in Libya that killed four Americans. She came out of an 11-hour televised congressional hearing in 2015 appearing poised. Even the Republican chair of the committee probing the attack said he wasn’t sure she revealed anything new about an issue many in his party considered a scandal.

    That experience has informed how the Clintons are approaching this week’s testimony. Hillary Clinton has been especially vocal in calling for the proceedings to happen in public, rather than in private as Comer currently plans.

    “We have nothing to hide,” she told the BBC earlier this month.

    Bill Clinton’s communication operation has taken a sharper tone, recalling the political “war room” popularized during the 1992 campaign to respond to negative storylines.

    One release accused Comer of “lying in every appearance he’s made this week.” Another mocked GOP Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona with a “hypocrisy award of the day,” noting how the Oversight Committee members defied subpoenas from the Jan. 6 panel.

    Meanwhile, the Clintons released a four-page letter to Comer on social media defiantly belittling a process they said was “literally designed to result in our imprisonment.”

    Much as they tried to refocus attention during the 1990s, the letter hit the White House for dismantling institutions, imposing a harsh immigration crackdown and pardoning those involved in the Capitol riot.

    Conservative attacks on the Clintons

    The Clintons’ rise to power paralleled the explosion of talk radio as a political force, with Rush Limbaugh using his daily show as a platform to constantly berate the White House. Today, conservative podcasters like Benny Johnson have filled Limbaugh’s space and were gleeful after the House panel moved last month to hold the couple in contempt.

    “Do you understand Donald Trump made good on his oldest promise arguably which is he told all of us 10 years ago that Hillary Clinton would be going to jail?” Johnson said last month.

    Still, some dynamics have changed.

    The lockstep support the Clintons enjoyed among congressional Democrats has eroded as a new generation of lawmakers has taken office — nine Democrats joined with Republicans on the House committee to advance the contempt resolution. Trump, who has faced scrutiny over his own ties to Epstein and may be uncomfortable with the precedent of forcing a former president to testify, has expressed rare concern for the Clintons.

    He told NBC News that it “bothers me that somebody is going after Bill Clinton.” He has described Hillary Clinton as a “very capable woman.”

    Even Hutchinson, who helped make the case for Bill Clinton’s impeachment, expressed sympathy for the couple.

    “It’s frustrating and disappointing that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are having to go through this fact-finding ordeal,” he said. “That’s difficult for them.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New York Attorney General Letitia James seeks to block Trump administration’s subpoenas

    [ad_1]

    New York Attorney General Letitia James is challenging the legitimacy of the acting U.S. attorney in Albany as she pushes back against the Trump administration’s investigation of cases she brought against the president and the National Rifle Association, according to court documents unsealed Friday.

    James in August filed a motion to block subpoenas issued by acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone for records related to the legal actions, claiming the Justice Department’s probe of the cases was retaliatory.

    She also argued that Sarcone had been improperly appointed to his position and, as a result, lacked legitimate authority to authorize the subpoenas.

    The subpoenas seek records related to a major civil case the Democrat James filed against President Donald Trump over alleged fraud in his personal business dealings. Another subpoena seeks records from a lawsuit involving the National Rifle Association and two senior executives.

    Dozens of court documents in the case have been filed under seal in U.S. District Court since August. A federal judge in Manhattan late Friday granted James’ motion to unseal most of the entries, making them public over the objection of the Justice Department.

    Judge Lorna Schofield, however, has not yet ruled on the motion to quash the subpoenas.

    “Unsealing this action is not only permissible but compelled,” she wrote. “One simple fact drives this conclusion: the information at issue is not secret.”

    An email seeking comment was sent to Sarcone’s office. A phone message was not immediately returned late Friday.

    James has accused the Trump administration of using the justice system as a “tool of revenge” against adversaries. The attorney general has sued Trump and his Republican administration dozens of times over his policies as president and over how he conducted his private business empire.

    In October, James was indicted in a federal mortgage fraud case the president pressed the Justice Department to bring. She pleaded not guilty Monday allegations she lied on mortgage papers to get favorable loan terms when purchasing a house in Norfolk, Virginia, where she has family.

    In her motion to quash Sarcone’s subpoenas, James cited anonymous media reports that they were part of a grand jury investigation into allegations that James violated Trump’s civil rights in 2022 when her office sued Trump, then a private businessman.

    She argued Sarcone lacked authority to issue the subpoenas because he was improperly appointed by the Trump administration.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Sarcone to serve as the interim U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York in March. With the expiration of the 120-day interim term, Bondi designated him as first assistant U.S. attorney for the district, essentially improperly extending his role as acting U.S. attorney, according to James.

    James’ lawyers in the mortgage fraud case have said they intend to challenge the appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, on similar grounds.

    The indictment in that case followed the resignation of Erik Siebert as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Siebert was replaced with Halligan, a White House aide and former Trump lawyer who had never previously served as a federal prosecutor, and presented James’ case to the grand jury herself.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maine regulators reject utility proposal to report suspected marijuana grow operations to police

    Maine regulators reject utility proposal to report suspected marijuana grow operations to police

    [ad_1]

    Maine utility regulators unanimously rejected on Tuesday an electric utility’s proposal to proactively report high consumption that signals a marijuana growing operation to law enforcement officials in an attempt to aid police crackdown on illicit operations.

    The three-member Public Utilities Commission cited concerns about customers who use large amounts of electricity for legitimate reasons being targeted because of the reports. Commissioners opted to stick with the status quo in which utilities provide consumer data only when presented with a formal law enforcement subpoena.

    Versant Power floated the idea because it says it has a high success rate of identifying marijuana grow houses but no ability to communicate that to police. Somerset County Sheriff Dale Lancaster called it a “good first step.” Other supporters included Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, who has aggressively pressed the FBI about the illegal marijuana operations.

    Versant spokesperson Judy Long said Tuesday the utility promoted the discussion “strictly in the interest of public and worker safety.”

    “After the discussion and today’s ruling in that docket, we have clear direction from the commission, and we will remain vigilant in protecting customers’ private information while continuing to work as mandated with law enforcement,” she said.

    The proposal was part of wide-ranging deliberations on Tuesday.

    It came as law enforcement officials target marijuana grow operations in which rural homes in Maine are purchased, gutted and transformed into sophisticated, high-yield indoor farms.

    Twenty states that legalized marijuana have seen a spike in illegal marijuana grow operations, and law enforcement officials have busted dozens of them in Maine. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration are investigating any ties these operations might have to criminal syndicates including Chinese-organized crime.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge rejects effort by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson to get records from Catholic church

    Judge rejects effort by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson to get records from Catholic church

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE (AP) — A Washington state judge said Friday that Attorney General Bob Ferguson is not entitled to enforce a subpoena seeking decades of records from the Seattle Archdiocese, despite his assertion that the records are needed to learn whether the Catholic church used charitable trust funds to cover up sexual abuse by priests.

    Judge Michael Scott sided with the archdiocese, which argued that under the state’s law governing charitable trusts, Ferguson did not have authority to enforce the subpoena. The law contains an exemption designed to ensure the state does not meddle in religious practices.

    Nevertheless, Seattle Archbishop Paul D. Etienne said in a written statement after Friday’s decision that the church is willing to provide the state with relevant records and collaborate with Ferguson on the investigation “in a lawful manner.”

    “Sexual abuse in the Church is a heart-wrenching part of our history, and I am deeply sorry for the pain caused to victim survivors, their families and all Catholics,” Etienne said. “We remain focused on the need for healing and proper governance in these matters. … Because we are committed to preventing abuse, promoting transparency and continuously improving our processes, my offer to collaborate with the attorney general still stands.”

    Ferguson, himself a Catholic, said his office would appeal. The state argued that the exemption in the law does protect religious practices — but that using charitable trust money to conceal or facilitate sex abuse was not a religious practice.

    “Our fight for survivors of clergy abuse is not over,” Ferguson said in a news release. “Washingtonians deserve a full public accounting of the Church’s involvement in and responsibility for the child sexual abuse crisis.”

    Ferguson filed the case in May, saying the church was stonewalling its investigation by refusing to comply with the subpoena.

    At the time, the archdiocese called his allegations a surprise, saying it welcomed the investigation and shares the state’s goals — “preventing abuse and helping victim survivors on their path to healing and peace.”

    Church officials said the records sought by the state were excessive and irrelevant — including every receipt going back to 1940, in an archdiocese with more than 170 pastoral locations and 72 schools.

    Some 23 states have conducted investigations of the Catholic church, and so far at least nine have issued reports detailing their findings. In some cases, those findings have gone far beyond what church officials had voluntarily disclosed.

    For example, the six Catholic dioceses in Illinois had reported publicly that there had been 103 clerics and religious brothers credibly accused of child sex abuse. But in a scathing report last year, the Illinois attorney general’s office said it had uncovered detailed information on 451 who had sexually abused at least 1,997 children.

    Similarly, Maryland last year reported staggering evidence of just how widespread the abuse was: More than 150 Catholic priests and others associated with the Archdiocese of Baltimore sexually abused over 600 children and often escaped accountability. In 2018, a Pennsylvania grand jury found that more than 300 Catholic clerics had abused more than 1,000 children in that state over the prior 70 years.

    The Seattle Archdiocese has published a list of 83 clerics it says were credibly accused, and it says that beginning in the 1980s it was one of the first in the nation to begin adopting policies to address and prevent sexual abuse by priests. Sexual abuse by church personnel peaked in 1975, and there have been no reports since 2007, the archdiocese said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate Dems authorize subpoenas in SCOTUS ethics probe as Republicans stage walkout

    Senate Dems authorize subpoenas in SCOTUS ethics probe as Republicans stage walkout

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to authorize subpoenas for two prominent conservatives who arranged luxury travel and other benefits for Supreme Court justices, but Republicans planned to object to the legitimacy of the action.

    The committee chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., pushed through the vote in the meeting’s final moments after Republicans had walked out. The vote from the 11 Democrats would authorize subpoenas for Republican megadonor Harlan Crow and conservative activist Leonard Leo. Yet Durbin acknowledged that ultimately enforcement of the subpoenas may hinge on a 60-vote threshold in the closely divided Senate.

    South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the committee’s top Republican, invoked a rule to limit the session to two hours, but Durbin proceeded with a vote on the subpoena authorization.

    “They think we’re gonna roll over and come back sometime later and try all over again and face the same limitations,” Durbin said. “There reaches a point where there has to be a vote. They walked out on it. That’s their decision.”

    It capped a contentious hearing in which Republicans tried to delay the committee from voting on the effort to subpoena Crow and Leo for information on the gifts and trips they gave to Supreme Court justices. The move is part of the committee’s investigation into Supreme Court ethics.

    The high court this month adopted its first code of ethics after facing criticism for some justices receiving luxury trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors. But Democrats pointed out that the ethics code lacks enforcement and allows the justices to police themselves. It “falls far short of what we would expect from the highest court in the land,” Durbin said.

    The committee has advanced legislation to impose a separate ethics code on the court.

    Crow has had both a close personal and financial relationship with Justice Clarence Thomas for more than two decades. Crow paid for nearly annual vacations for Thomas. Crow also bought from Thomas and others the Georgia home in which the justice’s mother still lives, and Crow paid for the private schooling for a Thomas relative.

    Leo is an executive at the Federalist Society and has orchestrated a push to move the court and the rest of the judiciary to the right.

    During the hearing, senators at times rehashed years-old grievances over the tactics used to control a committee that has been central in the political fight over judicial oversight. Republicans, angry at Durbin’s attempt to forge ahead on the subpoena vote, threatened that any bipartisan cooperation on the committee would be destroyed.

    Graham said the subpoenas were “garbage” and “a complete joke” and he accused Democrats of trying to remake the court to their liking.

    “You are trying to restructure the court. This is just another way to do it,” he said.

    When Durbin limited debate on separate judicial nominees to prevent Republicans from delaying the subpoena vote, GOP senators threatened retribution.

    “You are going to have a lot of consequences coming if you go down this road,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.

    The committee had previously planned to subpoena another wealthy Republican donor, Robin Arkley II, who arranged and paid for a private jet trip to Alaska for Justice Samuel Alito in 2008. Durbin dropped that subpoena after Arkley provided the information the committee was seeking.

    Durbin said Leo and Crow have not cooperated with the committee’s requests for more information on their relationships with justices.

    “Both Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow are central players in this crisis,” Durbin said. “Their attempts to thwart legitimate oversight efforts of Congress should concern all of us.”

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., added his support to the effort, saying, “The hypocrisy is undeniable and the American people see right through it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden tells Congress he’d testify publicly, but Republicans demand closed-door session

    Hunter Biden tells Congress he’d testify publicly, but Republicans demand closed-door session

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Hunter Biden offered Tuesday to testify publicly before Congress, striking a defiant note in response to a subpoena from Republicans and setting up a potential high-stakes faceoff even as a separate special counsel probe unfolds and his father, President Joe Biden, campaigns for reelection.

    The Democratic president’s son slammed the subpoena’s request for closed-door testimony, saying it can be manipulated. But Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, stood firm, saying Republicans expect “full cooperation” with their original demand for a deposition.

    Hunter Biden’s lawyer called the inquiry a “fishing expedition,” a response in line with the more forceful legal approach he’s taken in recent months as congressional Republicans pursue an impeachment inquiry seeking to tie his father to his business dealings.

    The early-November subpoenas to Hunter Biden and others from Comer were the inquiry’s most aggressive steps yet, testing the reach of congressional oversight powers.

    Republicans have so far failed to uncover evidence directly implicating President Biden in any wrongdoing. But questions have arisen about the ethics surrounding the Biden family’s international business, and lawmakers insist their evidence paints a troubling picture of “influence peddling” in their business dealings, particularly with clients overseas.

    Comer said Tuesday that the president’s son could testify publicly in the future, but he expects him to sit for a deposition on Dec. 13 as outlined in the subpoena.

    “Hunter Biden is trying to play by his own rules instead of following the rules required of everyone else. That won’t stand with House Republicans,” he said. Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said Republicans will stick with a private deposition first and then a public hearing. “We’re happy he wants to talk,” he said.

    Hunter Biden, for his part, said his business dealings are legitimate and accused Republicans of seeking to contort his past struggles with addiction. His attorney Abbe Lowell said in Tuesday’s letter that his client had previously offered to speak with the committee without a response. He’s willing to appear publicly rather than behind closed doors because those sessions can be selectively leaked and used to manipulate the facts, Lowell said.

    “If, as you claim, your efforts are important and involve issues that Americans should know about, then let the light shine on these proceedings,” Lowell wrote.

    Hunter Biden offered to appear on Dec. 13, the date named in the subpoena, or another day next month. Republicans have also spoken with an attorney for his uncle James Biden to determine a date for his subpoenaed testimony, Jordan said. The subpoenas to the Biden family members and others, including former business associate Rob Walker, are bitterly opposed by Democrats, and the White House has called for them to be withdrawn.

    “House Republicans should really focus on American families instead of the president’s family. That’s what Americans want to see,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday.

    Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, blasted the GOP rejection of Hunter Biden’s offer to testify publicly on Dec. 13, saying, “What the Republicans fear most is sunlight and the truth.”

    Hunter Biden’s response comes as he pushes back against his detractors in court, pursuing a flurry of lawsuits against Republican allies of former President Donald Trump who have traded and passed around private data from a laptop that purportedly belonged to him.

    President Biden, for his part, has had little to say about his son’s legal woes beyond that Hunter did nothing wrong and he loves his son. The White House strategy has generally been to keep the elder Biden focused on governing and voters focused on his policy achievements.

    That could prove more difficult as Hunter Biden continues to fight both the congressional probe and a criminal case into the next year, and there are indications it’s politically fraught territory for the president.

    An October poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 35% of U.S. adults believe Joe Biden personally has done something illegal with regard to the business dealings of his son. An additional 33% say the president acted unethically but did not violate the law. Just 30% say Joe Biden did nothing wrong.

    Hunter Biden is charged with three firearms felonies related to the 2018 purchase of a gun during a period he has acknowledged being addicted to drugs. The case was filed after an expected plea deal on tax evasion and gun charges imploded during a July hearing.

    No new tax charges have been filed, but the Justice Department special counsel overseeing the long-running investigation has indicated they are possible in California, where he now lives.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri and Colleen Long contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Republicans issue a subpoena to federal prosecutor in Hunter Biden’s case

    House Republicans issue a subpoena to federal prosecutor in Hunter Biden’s case

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — House Republicans issued a subpoena Tuesday to a federal prosecutor involved in the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden, demanding answers for what they allege is Justice Department interference in the yearslong case into the president’s son.

    Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, called on Lesley Wolf, the assistant U.S. attorney for Delaware, to appear before the committee by Dec. 7, according to a copy of the congressional subpoena obtained by The Associated Press.

    “Based on the Committee’s investigation to date, it is clear that you possess specialized and unique information that is unavailable to the Committee through other sources and without which the Committee’s inquiry would be incomplete,” Jordan wrote in an accompanying letter to Wolf.

    The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The subpoena to Wolf is the latest in a series of demands Jordan and fellow Republican chairmen have made as part of their sprawling impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. His youngest son Hunter and brother James received subpoenas last week as Republicans look to gain ground in their nearly yearlong investigation, which has so failed to uncover evidence directly implicating the president in any wrongdoing.

    The inquiry is focused both on the Biden family’s international business affairs and the Justice Department’s investigation into Hunter Biden, which Republicans claim has been slow-walked and stonewalled since the case was opened in 2018.

    Wolf, who serves with David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware in charge of the case, has been accused by whistleblowers from the Internal Revenue Service of “deviating from standard investigative protocol” and showing preferential treatment because Hunter Biden is the president’s son.

    Republicans have claimed that it was clear that the prosecutors didn’t want to touch anything that would include Hunter Biden’s father. In one instance, Gary Shapley, an IRS employee assigned to the case, testified that in a meeting with Weiss and Wolf after the 2020 election, he and other agents wanted to discuss an email between Hunter Biden associates where one person made reference to the “big guy.” Shapley said Wolf refused to do so, saying she did not want to ask questions about “dad.”

    Other claims relate to an August 2020 email in which Wolf ordered investigators to remove any mention of “Political Figure 1,” who was known to be Biden, from a search warrant. In another incident, FBI officials notified Hunter Biden’s Secret Service detail in advance of an effort to interview him and several of his business associates in order to avoid a potential shoot-out between two law enforcement bodies.

    Justice Department officials have countered these claims by pointing to the extraordinary set of circumstances surrounding a criminal case into a subject who at the time was the son of a leading presidential candidate. Department policy has long warned prosecutors to take care in charging cases with potential political overtones around the time of an election, to avoid any possible influence on the outcome.

    Weiss himself appeared for a closed-door interview this month and denied accusations of political interference.

    “Political considerations played no part in our decision-making,” he told the committee.

    Nonetheless, Republicans are demanding Wolf appear before lawmakers as she has “first-hand knowledge of the Department’s criminal inquiry of Hunter Biden,” and refused a voluntary request to come in over the summer.

    Jordan wrote in the letter to Wolf.: “Given your critical role you played in the investigation of Hunter Biden, you are uniquely situated to shed light on whether President Biden played any role in the Department’s investigation and whether he attempted, in any way, to directly or indirectly obstruct either that investigation or our investigation.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hunter Biden calls for a Trump subpoena, says political pressure put on criminal case

    Hunter Biden calls for a Trump subpoena, says political pressure put on criminal case

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — Hunter Biden asked a judge on Wednesday to approve subpoenas for documents from Donald Trump and former Justice Department officials related to whether political pressure wrongly influenced the criminal case against him.

    Biden’s attorneys allege there were “certain instances that appear to suggest incessant, improper, and partisan pressure applied” by Trump to his then-Attorney General William Barr and two top deputies, Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue.

    While charges against President Joe Biden’s son were not brought until this year, the investigation into his taxes and a gun purchase began in 2018, while Trump, a Republican, was still president.

    The court filing cites public comments made by Trump, information from the House panel that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and details from Barr’s book in which he described bubbling tension after Trump tried to pressure him over the status of the Hunter Biden probe.

    The push for subpoenas comes as defense attorneys fight the federal firearms case filed against Hunter Biden, who is accused of breaking laws against drug users having guns. He has pleaded not guilty, and the case is on a track toward a possible trial in 2024 while his father, a Democrat who defeated Trump in 2020, is campaigning for reelection.

    The subpoenas would seek documents and other communications about the investigation, including its origins and charging decisions. Representatives for Trump and the three former top Justice Department officials did not immediately return email messages seeking comment.

    Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell argued the information was essential to his defense that the case is “possibly, a vindictive or selective prosecution arising from an unrelenting pressure campaign beginning in the last administration,” that violated his rights.

    The subpoena request is before U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, a Trump nominee whose questions about a proposed plea deal over the summer ended with the agreement imploding in July.

    Hunter Biden had been expected to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax charges in an agreement that would have spared him prosecution on a gun count if he stayed out of trouble for two years.

    It had been pilloried as a “sweetheart deal” by Trump and congressional Republicans investigating nearly every aspect of Hunter Biden’s business dealings and the Justice Department’s handling of the case.

    Hunter Biden has taken a more aggressive legal approach in recent months, striking back with lawsuits against Republican Trump allies who have traded and passed around private data from a laptop that purportedly belonged to him.

    No new tax charges have yet been filed, but the special counsel overseeing the case has indicated they are possible in Washington or in California, where Hunter Biden lives.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Disney attorneys want to question former administrator in lawsuit with DeSantis appointees

    Disney attorneys want to question former administrator in lawsuit with DeSantis appointees

    [ad_1]

    Disney attorneys want to question a previous administrator of the Walt Disney World governing district as part of its defense against a lawsuit brought by a board made up of appointees of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

    ByMIKE SCHNEIDER Associated Press

    October 17, 2023, 12:10 PM

    FILE – Crowds fill Main Street USA in front of Cinderella Castle at the Magic Kingdom on the 50th anniversary of Walt Disney World, in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., on Oct. 1, 2021. Facing backlash, Walt Disney World’s governing district will pay a stipend to employees whose free passes and discounts to the theme park resort were eliminated under a policy made by a new district administrator and board members who are allies of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel via AP, File)

    The Associated Press

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Disney attorneys want to question a previous administrator of the governing district that provides municipal services to Walt Disney World as part of its defense against a state lawsuit brought by a board made up of appointees of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

    Disney attorneys said in court papers Monday that they have subpoenaed John Classe, the former administrator of what was previously called the Reedy Creek Improvement District for 55 years until it was renamed the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District earlier this year during a takeover by DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature. The takeover of the district, which was previously controlled by Disney allies, came after the company publicly opposed a state law banning classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades.

    Following the takeover, Classe was replaced by DeSantis ally, Glen Gilzean.

    Classe was in charge of the district when the governing body signed agreements with Disney which shifted control over design and construction at Disney World to the company and prohibited the district from using the likeness of Disney characters or other intellectual property without Disney’s permission. The agreements were signed in February before the district takeover by the DeSantis appointees, who claim the contracts neutered their powers. The appointees are now suing Disney in state court in an attempt to void the deals.

    Among the records the Disney attorneys are seeking from Classe are documents used to adopt the contracts, documents that support the district’s authority to enter the contracts and information about how the agreements were publicized, according to the court documents filed Monday. One of the arguments the DeSantis appointees make about why the agreements should be voided is that they weren’t properly publicized.

    Disney has filed counterclaims in the state lawsuit which include asking the state court to declare the agreements valid and enforceable. Disney has sent a notice to DeSantis’ office demanding internal communications, including text messages and emails, and documents. DeSantis currently is running for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

    Disney and DeSantis and his allies also are battling in federal court, where the company has sued DeSantis, claiming the governor violated its free speech rights by punishing it for expressing opposition to the law. DeSantis and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District have asked a federal judge to throw out Disney’s First Amendment lawsuit, calling it meritless.

    ___

    Follow Mike Schneider on X, formerly known as Twitter: @MikeSchneiderAP.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US regulators seek to compel Elon Musk to testify in their investigation of his Twitter acquisition

    US regulators seek to compel Elon Musk to testify in their investigation of his Twitter acquisition

    [ad_1]

    The Securities and Exchange Commission said Thursday it is seeking a court order that would compel Elon Musk to testify as part of an investigation into his purchase of Twitter, now called X.

    The SEC said in a filing in a San Francisco federal court that Musk failed to appear for testimony on Sept. 15 despite an investigative subpoena served by the SEC and having raised no objections at the time it was served.

    But “two days before his scheduled testimony, Musk abruptly notified the SEC staff that he would not appear,” said the agency’s filing. “Musk attempted to justify his refusal to comply with the subpoena by raising, for the first time, several spurious objections, including an objection to San Francisco as an appropriate testimony location.”

    X is based in San Francisco.

    Musk’s attorney, Alex Spiro, said in an emailed statement Thursday that the “SEC has already taken Mr. Musk’s testimony multiple times in this misguided investigation — enough is enough.”

    The SEC said it has been conducting a fact-finding investigation involving the period before Musk’s takeover last year when Twitter was still a publicly traded company. The agency said it has not concluded that anyone has violated federal securities laws.

    The Tesla CEO closed his $44 billion agreement to buy Twitter and take it private in October 2022, after a months-long legal battle with the social media company’s previous leadership.

    After Musk signed a deal to acquire Twitter in April 2022, he tried to back out of it, leading the company to sue him to force him to go through with the acquisition.

    The SEC said that starting in April 2022, it authorized an investigation into whether any securities laws were broken in connection with Musk’s purchases of Twitter stock and his statements and SEC filings related to the company.

    A lawsuit filed that same month by Twitter shareholders in New York alleged that the billionaire illegally delayed disclosing his stake in the social media company so he could buy more shares at lower prices.

    That complaint brought by a pension fund for Oklahoma firefighters centers around whether Musk violated an SEC regulatory deadline to reveal he had accumulated a stake of at least 5%. The delay, the lawsuit alleges, hurt less wealthy investors who sold shares in the company in the nearly two weeks before Musk acknowledged holding a major stake.

    U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter last week rejected Musk’s attempt to dismiss the case, expressing doubt about suggestions that “Musk was somehow ‘too busy’ to comply with SEC disclosure rules about his ownership stake in Twitter, while simultaneously buying millions of shares of stock of Twitter, tweeting about the state of Twitter as a social media platform, and meeting with several Twitter executives and insiders.” Carter, however, did dismiss part of the lawsuit alleging the actions amounted to insider trading.

    The SEC’s Thursday court filing doesn’t detail the specifics of what its investigation is about, but argues that the agency is responsible for protecting investors and has broad authority to conduct investigations and that Musk has no basis to refuse to comply.

    The SEC said Musk objected to testifying in San Francisco because he doesn’t live there, so the commission said it offered to do it at any of its 11 offices, including one in Fort Worth, Texas, closer to where Musk lives. The SEC said on Sept. 24, Musk’s lawyers responded by saying Musk would not appear for testimony in any location.

    Musk also objected to testifying on grounds that a biography on him by Walter Isaacson published on Sept. 12 contained “new information potentially relevant to this matter” and his lawyers needed time to review it. But the filing says the book’s publication is ”not a legitimate basis” for Musk to avoid a legal subpoena and in “any event, Musk’s initial refusal to comply with the subpoena has now presented his counsel with plenty of time to review the biography for any relevant information.”

    A hearing on the matter is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 9 in San Francisco.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal investigators subpoena Pennsylvania agency for records related to chocolate plant explosion

    Federal investigators subpoena Pennsylvania agency for records related to chocolate plant explosion

    [ad_1]

    Federal safety investigators issued a subpoena to Pennsylvania’s public utility regulator on Monday for documents related to a fatal explosion at a chocolate factory, escalating a months-long legal dispute over the state agency’s authority to share the sensitive information.

    The National Transportation Safety Board said the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has refused to provide unredacted inspection and investigation reports for UGI Utilities Inc., the natural gas utility at the center of the probe into the March 24 blast at the R.M. Palmer Co. plant in West Reading.

    The powerful natural gas explosion leveled one building, heavily damaged another and killed seven people. Investigators have previously said they are looking at a pair of gas leaks as a possible cause of or contributor to the blast.

    The interagency dispute over five years’ worth of UGI records involved a conflict between state and federal law.

    The Public Utility Commission said it could not provide the records in the format that the safety agency demanded, citing a state law that protects “confidential security information” about key utility infrastructure from public disclosure, even to other government agencies.

    The commission said it offered safety investigators a chance to inspect the reports at its Harrisburg office or to sign a nondisclosure agreement, but the federal agency refused.

    “This is a unique situation where a federal agency is demanding that the PUC violate state law,” PUC spokesperson Nils Hagen-Frederiksen said in a written statement. “It is unfortunate that the NTSB has rejected possible solutions to this issue, but we continue working to resolve this impasse.”

    The safety board said federal regulations entitled it to the utility company records and asserted the PUC was required to turn them over.

    Because federal law preempts state law, NTSB chair Jennifer L. Homendy wrote to the state utility commission chair, the PUC “has no legal basis to withhold the … inspection reports from the NTSB in any manner.”

    In addition to issuing the subpoena, the safety agency said it also barred the Public Utility Commission from having any further role in the federal probe.

    “The actions of PA PUC have evidenced a lack of cooperation and adherence to our party processes and prevent your continued participation in the investigation,” Homendy wrote.

    About 70 Palmer production workers and 35 office staff were working in two adjacent buildings at the time of the blast. Employees in both buildings told federal investigators they could smell gas before the explosion. Workers at the plant have accused Palmer of ignoring warnings of a natural gas leak, saying the plant, in a small town 60 miles (96 kilometers) northwest of Philadelphia, should have been evacuated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Georgia lieutenant governor subpoenaed to testify before Fulton County grand jury in 2020 election probe | CNN Politics

    Former Georgia lieutenant governor subpoenaed to testify before Fulton County grand jury in 2020 election probe | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Georgia Republican Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan received subpoenas to testify before a Fulton County grand jury this month, a source with direct knowledge of the 2020 election interference investigation in the state told CNN.

    Duncan has been a sharp critic of Donald Trump’s efforts to upend Georgia’s election results. He recently told CNN that he was “embarrassed” when Rudy Giuliani, a former attorney for Trump, and other allies of the former president appeared before Georgia state lawmakers. While Duncan was president of the Georgia state Senate at the time, he told CNN he did not “sanction” those meetings, and that they were not “official hearings.”

    In an interview Monday with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room,” Duncan committed to testifying in front of the grand jury, saying he’ll “be there to answer the facts as I know them and to continue this process of trying to discover what actually happened during that post-election period of time.”

    “We can never repeat that in this country. Certainly I never want to see that happen in my home state of Georgia, a lot of good peoples’ lives were uprooted, a lot of peoples’ reputations have been soiled,” Duncan, a CNN political contributor and Republican, said.

    Duncan said that he would be “willing to testify and tell the truth in as many settings as I possibly can,” in response to a question about whether he’d be willing to testify in any other related trials.

    A spokesperson for the Fulton County district attorney’s office declined to comment.

    The former lieutenant governor is the third witness publicly known to receive a subpoena for grand jury testimony. CNN previously reported independent journalist George Chidi and former Georgia Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan have also been subpoenaed.

    On December 3, 2020, while Duncan was president of the state Senate, Giuliani spread conspiracy theories about widespread irregularities and fraud in the state during a Georgia Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing about election integrity. Jordan was in attendance.

    At the hearing, Trump’s team presented a video of what they claimed was evidence of fraud from election night ballot tabulating in Fulton County, allegations that were investigated by the FBI, Department of Justice and state election officials – and proven to be erroneous.

    The recent subpoenas are the clearest indication Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis intends to seek indictments in her long-running criminal probe into efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

    Willis told CNN affiliate WXIA at an event late last month that “the work is accomplished,” adding later, “We’ve been working for two and half years. We’re ready to go.”

    Sources expect Willis’ team to spend roughly two days presenting its case before one of the two grand juries meeting regularly in Fulton County with the power to issue indictments. Willis has said she will make her charging announcements before September 1.

    The subpoenas for grand jury testimony call on the witnesses to appear before the grand jury during the month of August and state that witnesses will get a 48-hour notice when they are required to appear. Multiple people who were subpoenaed told CNN they have not yet been notified of an appearance date.

    Duncan on Monday would not comment on the timing of his expected appearance in front of the grand jury: “I don’t want to infringe on any details of the investigation, so I’ll leave that offline and off of this commentary here. But I’m committed to telling the truth – I know a number of people are around this process.”

    Duncan, Jordan and Chidi were all part of the group of 75 witnesses who previously testified before the special grand jury Willis used last year to gather evidence in her investigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Judiciary Committee expected to launch inquiry into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis | CNN Politics

    House Judiciary Committee expected to launch inquiry into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee is expected to open a congressional investigation into Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis as soon as Thursday, a source tells CNN – the same day former President Donald Trump is slated to surrender at the county jail after being charged for participating in schemes to meddle with Georgia’s 2020 election results.

    The committee is expected to ask Willis whether she was coordinating with the Justice Department, which has indicted Trump twice in two separate cases, or used federal dollars to complete her investigation that culminated in the fourth indictment of Trump, the source added. The anticipated questions from Republicans about whether Willis used federal funding in her state-level investigation mirrors the same line of inquiry that Republicans used to probe Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who indicted Trump in New York for falsifying business records to cover up an alleged hush money scheme.

    Meanwhile, Georgia Republicans could launch their own state-level investigation into Willis’ probe, according to GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who has spoken to top officials in the state about a potential probe. She has also been pushing for a congressional-led inquiry into Willis, who has previously dismissed GOP accusations accusing her of being partisan and consistently defended her investigation.

    “I’m going to be talking to (House Judiciary Chair) Jim Jordan, (House Oversight Chair) Jamie Comer, and I’d like to also ask (Speaker) Kevin McCarthy his thoughts on looking at doing an investigation if there is a collaboration or conspiracy of any kind between the Department of Justice and Jack Smith’s special counsel’s office with the state DA’s,” Greene told CNN. “So, I think that could be a place of oversight.”

    It all amounts to a familiar playbook for House Republicans, who have been quick to try to use their congressional majority – which includes the ability to launch investigations, issue subpoenas and restrict funding – to defend the former president and offer up some counter programming amid his mounting legal battles. But they’ve also run into some resistance in their extraordinary efforts to intervene in ongoing criminal matters, while there are questions about what jurisdiction they have over state-level investigations.

    As their target list on behalf of Trump grows, House Republicans are also cranking up the heat on their own investigations into the Biden family.

    Just this week, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy vowed to move ahead with an impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden after the House returns from August recess if the Biden administration does not turn over more documents and information related to the Republican led investigations related to Hunter Biden – the strongest sign yet that House Republicans are poised to launch an impeachment inquiry of the president.

    A McCarthy spokesperson did not respond to CNN’s request for comment to elaborate on the speaker’s remark that opening an impeachment inquiry hinged on whether committees received the “bank statements, the credit card statements and other” documents they were asking for.

    House Oversight chair James Comer has subpoenaed six banks for information regarding specific Biden family business associates, received testimony from Hunter Biden’s associates and reviewed hundreds of suspicious activity reports related to the Biden family at the Treasury Department. The Kentucky Republican has not yet subpoenaed bank records from Biden family members themselves. He boasted in June on Fox Business that “every subpoena that I have signed as chairman of the House Oversight Committee over the last five months, we’ve gotten 100% of what we’ve requested, whether it’s with the FBI, or with banks, or with Treasury.”

    The House Judiciary chair, GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, just subpoenaed four individuals involved in the Hunter Biden criminal probe and has requested a number of documents and interviews pertaining to special counsel David Weiss’ ongoing criminal investigation.

    There is still some skepticism among more moderate Republicans, however, about whether they should be trying to intervene in ongoing investigations and whether an impeachment inquiry is warranted.

    Behind the scenes, members of the House Judiciary panel, who would help oversee an impeachment inquiry, have recently been discussing how all signs are pointing towards the House launching one in short order.

    “We had even some of our more moderate members saying that the oversight wasn’t serious if the next step wasn’t an impeachment inquiry,” Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a top Trump surrogate and Judiciary panel member, told CNN about a recent committee call. “There was great interest among my Judiciary colleagues to really include and involve everyone in the conference. There’s a real desire to get everyone on board and go through the evidence with those who might remain skeptical.”

    Trump’s allies have called for Congress to expunge Trump’s two previous impeachments, a move that has sparked pushback by many even among House Republicans.

    Greene, who spoke with McCarthy on Tuesday, said she doesn’t think the votes are there yet for expunging Trump’s previous two impeachments, even as the former president continues to promote the idea on Truth Social. But she said, “I think the impeachment inquiry looks very, very good.”

    “He is spending the recess talking about it constantly,” Greene added of McCarthy. “I really feel strongly that that’s something that’s going to happen.”

    Even before Trump’s indictment in Fulton County his congressional allies were laying the groundwork to take aim at Willis and broader election laws.

    GOP Rep. Russell Fry of South Carolina introduced a longshot bill earlier this year to give current and former presidents and vice presidents the ability to move their civil or criminal cases from a state court to a federal court as the investigation in Fulton County was ongoing. Fry introduced the bill shortly after Trump was indicted by Bragg on more than 30 counts related to business fraud.

    The Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fry’s bill, is examining ways to move this bill forward and schedule a markup, two sources familiar with the process told CNN.

    Fry, who tweeted shortly after the Fulton County indictment that the outcome underscores the need for his bill, said in a statement to CNN, “these rogue prosecutors shouldn’t be able to wield unwarranted power and target our nation’s top leaders for their political agendas.”

    Separately, the House Committee on Administration has been working on a conservative election integrity package that Republicans are calling “transformative,” but Democrats frame as “designed to appease extremist election deniers.”

    Republicans argue the bill gives states the tools to strengthen voter integrity, implement selection reforms in Washington, DC, and protects conservatives’ political speech. Democrats, meanwhile, contest the legislation attacks the freedom to vote, burdens election workers and creates less transparency in elections.

    One of the nine hearings that Republicans held on the bill, which recently passed out of committee and is ready for a floor vote in the House, was held last month in Atlanta.

    The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, accused Republicans of playing defense for Trump through the field hearing, which Republicans have said was not the case.

    “One might ask, why are we here in Georgia? The answer is simple. We’re here because in 2020, Joe Biden won and Donald Trump lost. There was no widespread voter fraud in Georgia, there were no suitcases full of fake ballots, no voting machines changed any votes. In fact, we know of only one possible crime that took place, because it was recorded on tape,” Morelle said.

    Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have also accused their Republican counterparts of coinciding the release of key interview transcripts with days consumed by Trump’s legal woes, according to a recent memo released by Democratic committee staff.

    An Oversight Committee spokesperson said in a statement to CNN, “to be clear, there was absolutely no connection between the transcript releases and anything else covered in the news.”

    The types of moves Republicans made on behalf of Trump in the wake of the Fulton County indictment are not necessarily new. After Trump was indicted by the Department of Justice in two separate cases, Greene called for Congress to defund Smith’s office, who is overseeing the two federal indictment cases, and House Freedom Caucus members issued a statement Monday that they would not support even a short-term government spending bill that does not address what they see as the weaponization of the Department of Justice.

    Gaetz recently introduced a resolution to censure and condemn the judge presiding over Trump’s federal indictment in the 2020 election subversion case.

    Despite the partisan back and forth, Trump’s Capitol Hill allies remain unfazed. But, not all Republicans have bought into the Trump defensive strategy.

    “Nobody is paying attention other than the people who are obsessed with Trump,” a senior Republican lawmaker told CNN.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro convicted of contempt of Congress | CNN Politics

    Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro convicted of contempt of Congress | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Donald Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has been convicted of contempt of Congress for not complying to a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    Navarro is the second ex-aide to the former president to be prosecuted for his lack of cooperation with the committee. Steve Bannon was convicted last year on two contempt counts. Bannon’s case is currently on appeal.

    Navarro pledged to appeal based on executive privilege issues.

    “We knew going in what the verdict was going to be. That is why this is going to the appeals court,” he told reporters outside the courthouse. “And we feel – look, I said from the beginning this is going to the Supreme Court. I said from the beginning I’m willing to go to prison to settle this issue, I’m willing to do that.”

    Hear from ex-Trump aide after guilty of contempt verdict

    Asked by CNN if he’s spoken with the former president or reached out for help on legal bills, Navarro called Trump “a rock,” but did not elaborate on any communications.

    “President Trump has been a rock in terms of assistance. We talk when we need to talk,” Navarro said. “He will win the presidential race in 2024, in November. You know why? Because the people are tired of Joe Biden weaponizing courts like this and the Department of Justice.”

    After the verdict was read, Navarro’s lawyers sought a mistrial, raising concerns about any influence alleged protestors may have had when jurors took a break outdoors Thursday afternoon. US District Judge Amit Mehta did not immediately rule on the motion.

    The judge scheduled Navarro’s sentencing for January 12, 2024.

    Tim Mulvey, former spokesperson for House January 6 committee, celebrated the verdict.

    “His defiance of the committee was brazen. Like the other witnesses who attempted to stonewall the committee, he thought he was above the law. He isn’t. That’s a good thing for the rule of law. I imagine that those under indictment right now are getting a good reminder of that right now,” Mulvey told CNN in a statement.

    Prosecutors told the jury during closing arguments Thursday that Navarro “made a choice” not to comply with a February 2022 subpoena.

    Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Aloi said that government only works if people play by the rules and are held accountable if they don’t.

    “The subpoena – it is not hard to understand,” she said, adding that Navarro knew “what he was required to do and when he was required to do it.”

    Navarro’s attorney Stanley Woodward contested the idea that the subpoena was simple, staying that the subpoena did not specify where in the Capitol complex Navarro was supposed to show up for his deposition.

    He also said that prosecutors failed to prove that Navarro was willful in his failure to comply with the subpoena, arguing that prosecutors hadn’t established that his non-compliance with the demand for testimony was not the result of a mistake or accident.

    “Why didn’t the government present evidence to you about where Dr. Navarro was or what he was doing” on the day of the scheduled deposition, Woodward asked the jury. “Something stinks.”

    Prosecutor John Crabb responded: “Who cares where he was. What matters is where he wasn’t.”

    Crabb repeatedly referred to Navarro as “that man’ while pointing to him, telling the jury at one point, “that man thinks he is above the law.”

    The gestures elicited strong reactions from Navarro, who at times threw up his hand, shook his head or laughed. Woodward eventually jumped up and whispered to his client, and the two stood quietly together for the remainder of the proceeding.

    The jury was attentive during closing arguments, watching carefully as lawyers presented their final case. Navarro stood directly across the room with his hands clasped and stared at jurors intently.

    After the jury was dismissed, Woodward told the judge that the defense was seeking a mistrial because they had learned the jury had taken an outdoor break shortly before rendering the verdict and that during that break, they were around a “number” of January 6-related protestors demonstrating and chanting outside of the court.

    “It’s obvious the jury would have heard those protestors,” Woodward said. “It’s impossible for us to know what influence that would have” on their verdict.

    Crabb challenged the idea that there were protestors in the park next to the courthouse where the jurors took their break. Woodward countered that Navarro himself had been “accosted” earlier in the day by a protestor when he was coming through that park.

    Mehta said he knew that jurors had asked to take their break outside, where they were accompanied by a court security officer, but that he was not aware that protestors were in the park. He told Woodward that he was not going to rule on the mistrial request without receiving more briefing and evidence.

    Navarro was briefly interrupted by protesters when he left the courthouse after the verdict was read Thursday.

    It’s a “sad day for America, not ‘cause … they were guilty verdicts, because I can’t come out and have an honest, decent conversation with the people of America,” Navarro said.

    “People of America, I want you to understand that this is the problem we have right here – this kind of divide in our country between the woke Marxist left and everybody else here. And this is nuts,” he added.

    Navarro joined the Trump White House to advise on trade and became a well-known face of the Trump administration, while earning a reputation for sparring behind the scenes with his White House colleagues.

    He played a prominent role in the administration’s Covid-19 response as well. He led some of the efforts to speed up the deployment of medical supplies and also was a defender of fringe Trump views about the virus, including the former president’s advocacy of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine.

    Navarro was still working at the White House in the period after the 2020 election and lost a pre-trial fight to argue to the jury that Trump asserted an executive privilege that shielded him from the subpoena, and he and his attorneys have signaled that, if convicted, he will raise that and other legal issues on appeal.

    “So today’s ‘Judgment Day,’” Navarro told reporters as he walked into the courthouse Thursday.

    “I have been stripped, stripped of virtually every defense by the court and yet there is some defense left and the reality here is the government has not proved his case,” he said. “Please understand that the Biden-weaponized Department of Justice is the biggest law firm in the world. That’s what I’m fighting against.”

    The trial itself moved forward this week with notable speed and simplicity. It took less than a day for the jury to hear all the evidence in the case.

    Prosecutors put just three witnesses on the stand, all former staff members of the House January 6 committee. The Justice Department used their testimony to make the case that the committee had good reason to subpoena Navarro and that he was informed repeatedly of its demands.

    In her closing argument, prosecutor Aloi told the jury that Navarro “had knowledge about a plan to delay the activities of Congress on January 6.”

    “The defendant was more than happy to share that knowledge” in television interviews and in other public remarks, Aloi said, “except to the congressional committee that could do something about” preventing a future attack.

    Woodward sought to paint the mention about the attack on the Capitol and the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power as a distraction.

    “This case is not about what happened on January 6,” Woodward said in his closing argument.

    Navarro’s defense team engaged in only brief cross examination, questioning just one of the government’s witnesses. His lawyers were focused on the element of the charge that requires a showing that Navarro was willful and deliberate in his decision not to comply with the subpoena – meaning that his lack of compliance was not the result of an inadvertent mistake or accident.

    The defense did not put on any witnesses of their own, having abandoned a plan to call an FBI agent who worked on the Justice Department probe into Navarro for questioning on the lack of DOJ investigating into Navarro’s whereabouts on the day his committee deposition was scheduled.

    Navarro’s service as a Trump White House aide has generated continuing legal troubles for the former trade adviser – troubles that go beyond the criminal case.

    The Justice Department brought a civil lawsuit against him to obtain government records from Navarro’s personal email account that were withheld from the National Archives upon his departure from government. He has appealed the ruling against him in that case.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mar-a-Lago property manager is the latest in line of Trump staffers ensnared in legal turmoil

    Mar-a-Lago property manager is the latest in line of Trump staffers ensnared in legal turmoil

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A longtime Mar-a-Lago staffer who spent years fetching luxury cars for wealthy club members is the latest person to be ensnared in former President Donald Trump ‘s ballooning legal troubles.

    Carlos De Oliveira appeared in court Monday to face charges connected to what prosecutors allege was a scheme directed by the former president and current GOP frontrunner to try to erase security footage after it was subpoenaed by a grand jury. De Oliveira is also charged with lying to investigators, according to a new indictment unveiled last week.

    De Oliveira is now the second little-known Trump employee charged in connection to his alleged hoarding of classified documents at his Palm Beach, Florida, club. His case highlights the collateral damage of Trump’s mounting legal woes, as he leaves a trail of co-conspirators and allies accused of lying or committing other crimes on his behalf. Some of those finding themselves under legal scrutiny depend on Trump for their livelihood — and now to pay their mounting legal bills.

    Trump has adamantly denied any wrongdoing and accused President Joe Biden’s Justice Department of targeting him to damage his campaign.

    “They’re trying to intimidate people so that people go out and make up lies about me. Because I did nothing wrong,” he told conservative radio host John Fredericks last week. “But these are two wonderful employees. They’ve been with me for a long time and they’re great people. And they want to destroy their lives.”

    The White House has repeatedly denied any suggestion that Biden has sought to influence investigations related to Trump.

    De Oliveira’s appearance Monday marked not only the public’s first glimpse of Trump’s co-defendant, but an introduction for many who frequent the club. Unlike Nauta, who is a constant presence by Trump’s side, even current and former Trump staffers and allies said after the indictment was unsealed they were unfamiliar with De Oliveira and didn’t recognize his name. Several asked whether a reporter might have a photograph to help jog their memories.

    Mar-a-Lago is staffed by more than 150 workers, from full-time staff to seasonal employees, and many were among those called to appear before the grand jury, according to people familiar with the appearances, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the case. They are just some of the dozens of staff, aides, public officials and attorneys who have been caught up in overlapping investigations into the documents as well as Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    De Oliveira, according to the indictment and public records, has worked at Mar-a-Lago for more than 20 years, beginning as a valet who earned just $12,000 in 2010. He was promoted to the club’s property manager in January 2022.

    One club member who requested anonymity to talk about staff described De Oliveira as a friendly face who ran the valet parking operation. The club member said it was hard to imagine Trump having any kind of lengthy conversations with someone in his position, as the indictment alleges. Others, however, noted Trump has a tendency to talk to everyone, including staff, and pays very close attention to his properties, pointing out issues like chipped paint, and directing maintenance workers to quickly attend to them.

    Trump also has a longtime pattern of elevating low-level staffers, building intense loyalty in the process. They pointed to people like Dan Scavino, a former golf caddy who became one of Trump’s most trusted aides, serving as a White House deputy chief of staff for communications and one of the few people entrusted to issue tweets under his name.

    While those who have been elevated by Trump are among his most loyal defenders, others who have turned against the former president described a pattern of young staffers and low-level employees becoming enthralled with Trump and the trappings of power — first at the White House, with its rides aboard Air Force One, and now at Mar-a-Lago where dues-paying members burst into applause every time he enters a room. Trump, they say, has a knack for making people feel like they are special, and, from some, earns blind loyalty in return.

    Stephanie Grisham, a onetime press secretary and aide to the former first lady, who is now a vocal Trump critic, said she was initially enamored by it all.

    “I used to be in awe of that very thing,” she said. “He makes you feel important.”

    De Oliveira and his attorney, John Irving, didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment and nobody answered the door at the home he rents in a working-class suburban community close to the highway between Jupiter and West Palm Beach. In 2012, records show, he filed for bankruptcy.

    “The Justice Department has unfortunately decided to bring these charges against Mr. De Oliveira,” Irving said after the court appearance Monday. “They don’t stop to put their money where their mouth is. I am looking forward to seeing what discovery is.”

    De Oliveira joins a long line of former Trump associates, employees and supporters who have faced potential jail time or served time behind bars. They include Walt Nauta, the Navy valet who fetched Trump’s Diet Cokes at the White House before joining him as a personal aide, and was charged last month alongside Trump for his role in the alleged scheme. Both he and Trump have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

    Allen Weisselberg, a Trump Organization executive, served three months in jail after pleading guilty to receiving $1.7 million in unreported job perks; and Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyer and fixer, who spent more than 13 months behind bars over payouts he helped arrange during the 2016 presidential race to keep women from going public about alleged sexual encounters with Trump. Trump has since been charged in connection to the payments.

    Others have recently been implicated. In Michigan last month, 16 Republicans who acted as fake electors to help Trump overturn the results of the 2020, were charged with felonies. And more than 1,000 people so far have been charged with federal crimes in connection with storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2001, driven by Trump’s like of a stolen election.

    The document unveiled last week alleges that, the day after the Trump organization was informed of a draft grand jury subpoena asking for security camera footage from Mar-a-Lago, Trump called De Oliveira, and they spoke for approximately 24 minutes. A day later, Nauta — who was scheduled to travel with Trump to Illinois — changed his arrangements and instead made plans to travel to Palm Beach.

    At the club, Nauta met with De Oliveira and the two “went to the security guard booth where surveillance video is displayed on monitors, walked with a flashlight through the tunnel where the Storage Room was located, and observed and pointed out surveillance cameras.”

    Two days later, De Oliveira allegedly asked “Trump Employee 4” — a man identified as information technology worker Yuscil Taveras — how long security footage was saved on the club’s server and said “the boss” wanted the server deleted. When the employee responded that he would not know how to do that and didn’t have the right to, De Oliveira allegedly “insisted to TRUMP Employee 4 that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted and asked, what are we going to do?’”

    It remains unclear whether the men succeeded in preventing investigators from accessing any footage. Prosecutors, in their interviews, had asked about potential gaps or missing footage but the indictments make ample reference to movement caught on tape and Trump has insisted nothing was deleted.

    Another notable scene unfolded two weeks after the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search. The indictment alleges that Nauta called another Trump employee and said words to the effect of, “someone just wants to make sure Carlos is good.” The employee allegedly responded that De Oliveira was loyal and would not do anything to affect his relationship with the former president — and later confirmed that in a Signal chat. Later that day, Trump allegedly called De Oliveira and told the property manager that he would get him an attorney.

    Trump’s political operation has paid tens of millions of dollars on legal fees for associates, including De Oliveira, and recently created a new legal defense fund to help cover costs.

    “In order to combat these heinous actions by Joe Biden’s cronies and to protect these innocent people from financial ruin and prevent their lives from being completely destroyed, a new legal defense fund will help pay for their legal fees to ensure they have representation against unlawful harassment,” said Trump spokesman Steven Cheung.

    Grisham said the help made it harder to turn on Trump.

    “If he’s looking out into the world right now, he’s not seeing that anyone whose turned on Trump has been real successful. And he’s getting his lawyers paid for … so I think he traps you in that regard too… You’re trapped financially, you’re trapped emotionally and you dig yourself into a hole you cannot get out of, thinking: ‘What is the upside for me to tell the truth?’… At the end of the day you have to feed yourself and your family.”

    ___ Associated Press writers Adriana Gomez Licon in Miami and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Republicans plan to hold Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress

    House Republicans plan to hold Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is threatening to hold Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress for failing to supply documents related to an investigation into supposed censorship by tech companies of conservatives.

    Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the Judiciary Committee, said the panel plans to hold a hearing Thursday to vote on a contempt report detailing how Zuckerberg has “willfully refused” to comply with a February subpoena.

    The measure is likely to pass the GOP-controlled committee. It would then be up to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to hold a full House vote on the contempt resolution as early as this fall, after the August recess.

    If the House were to hold Zuckerberg in contempt, the Justice Department would decide whether to prosecute him.

    Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Meta, said the company has delivered more than 50,000 pages of both internal and external documents to the committee since February. He added that they also have made current and former employees available for interviews with lawmakers.

    “For many months, Meta has operated in good faith with this committee’s sweeping requests for information,” Stone said in a statement.

    Jordan, R-Ohio, issued the subpoenas to the chief executives of the five largest tech companies, including Zuckerberg, shortly after Republicans took over the House in January — looking to make good on a campaign promise to investigate Big Tech’s content moderation, particularly over COVID-19.

    The letters were also sent to Sundar Pichai of Alphabet; Satya Nadella of Microsoft; Tim Cook of Apple; and Andy Jassy of Amazon.com. All were asked to turn over any documents related to what they assert is widespread corporate censorship of conservative voices.

    Twitter was notably absent from the list of companies subpoenaed. Its owner, Tesla founder Elon Musk, has proven to be more sympathetic to conservatives than Twitter’s previous management, and Republicans in Congress have gone to bat for him. Republicans held hearings in February with former Twitter executives where GOP lawmakers grilled the witnesses about the company’s decision to initially block a New York Post article in October 2020 about the contents of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden.

    Since then, Jordan has put pressure on Meta specifically, even sending a letter last week to Zuckerberg asking for the platform to produce a whole new series of documents related to content moderation on its new app, Threads, a new rival to Twitter.

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Barbara Ortutay in San Francisco contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Republicans set to interrogate FTC’s Khan over ethics, antitrust issues

    House Republicans set to interrogate FTC’s Khan over ethics, antitrust issues

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — House Republicans who say the Federal Trade Commission has been overzealous and politicized under President Joe Biden are set to interrogate agency head Lina Khan on Thursday, bringing her before the House Judiciary Committee for the first time amid her court battles with big technology companies.

    Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has criticized Khan in recent months on a multitude of issues, including what he says are politically motivated actions directed at Elon Musk after he acquired Twitter last year, questions about whether she should have recused herself from certain cases and her legal actions against tech giants on antitrust issues. In April, the committee subpoenaed Khan after an investigation by the panel that concluded the FTC “harassed” Twitter in the wake of Musk’s acquisition.

    The hearing will examine “mismanagement of the FTC and its disregard for ethics and congressional oversight under Chair Lina Khan,” the Judiciary panel’s website says.

    The hearing comes as the agency has been embroiled in several legal cases against technology companies and as Khan — an outspoken critic of Big Tech before becoming the agency’s head — has tried, not always successfully, to toughen government regulation of those companies.

    Khan and the agency suffered a major defeat Tuesday when a federal judge declined to block Microsoft’s looming $69 billion takeover of video game company Activision Blizzard. The FTC had sought to ax the deal, saying it will hurt competition.

    U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said the deal — the largest in the history of the tech industry — deserved scrutiny but the FTC hadn’t shown that it would cause serious harm. The FTC is now appealing her ruling.

    Another judge rebuffed the FTC’s attempt earlier this year to stop Meta from taking over the virtual reality fitness company Within Unlimited.

    The FTC has also sued Amazon for allegedly engaging in a yearslong effort to enroll consumers without consent into Amazon Prime and making it difficult for them to cancel their subscriptions. In a complaint filed in federal court last month, the agency accused Amazon of using deceptive designs, known as “dark patterns,” to deceive consumers into enrolling in the service.

    The FTC has been investigating Twitter, including efforts this spring to obtain owner Elon Musk’s internal communications, as part of ongoing oversight into the social media company’s privacy and cybersecurity practices.

    The agency has been watching the company for years since Twitter agreed to a 2011 consent order alleging serious data security lapses. But the agency’s concerns spiked with the tumult that followed Musk’s October takeover of the company and mass layoffs that followed.

    Khan, a legal scholar, was a known tech critic when she took over the agency in 2021 and her nomination was seen as a signal from the Biden administration that it would be tough on technology companies as they have been under intense pressure from other regulators and state attorneys general.

    She was a professor at Columbia University Law School and became known for her scholarly work in 2017 as a Yale law student, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” That work helped lay the foundation for a new way of looking at antitrust law beyond the impact of big-company market dominance on consumer prices.

    And she has experience with the Judiciary committee, having served as counsel to the panel’s antitrust subcommittee in 2019 and 2020. In that role she played a key role in a sweeping bipartisan investigation of the market power of the tech giants.

    Jordan’s House Judiciary panel has also gone after the tech companies for what Republicans say is censorship of conservatives. The committee subpoenaed the chief executives of the five largest tech companies in February as part of an effort to investigate Big Tech’s moderation of content.

    ___

    O’Brien reported from Providence, R.I.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Republicans are clashing with the FBI over a confidential Biden document

    Why Republicans are clashing with the FBI over a confidential Biden document

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The yearslong feud between congressional Republicans and the FBI is reaching a new level of rancor as lawmakers prepare a resolution to hold bureau director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress.

    Rep. James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has scheduled a committee vote for Thursday morning on the contempt resolution against Wray. He says the FBI has failed to comply with a lawful subpoena for an FBI record that documents an unverified tip about President Joe Biden.

    The resolution to hold Wray in contempt — which would have to be approved by the full House — is just the latest broadside from Republicans against the FBI. They accuse the bureau of harboring bias against conservatives dating back to Donald Trump‘s presidency and allege the bureau is now stonewalling legitimate congressional oversight.

    Release of the document in question, FBI officials have warned, would jeopardize the safety of the confidential human source who received the unverified tip.

    What to know about the clash between Republicans and the FBI:

    ___

    THE SUBPOENA

    Comer issued a subpoena to Wray on May 3 after GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa received a whistleblower complaint. They said they were told the bureau has a document that “describes an alleged criminal scheme” involving Biden and a foreign national “relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions” when Biden was vice president.

    “It has been alleged that the document includes a precise description of how the alleged criminal scheme was employed as well as its purpose,” Comer and Grassley wrote in a letter to Wray.

    Both men have said they do not know if information is true, but insist the allegations warrant further investigation. The White House has accused Republicans of “floating anonymous innuendo.”

    ___

    WHAT IS THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION?

    The document Republicans are focused on is what is known as an FD-1023 form, which is used by federal agents to record tips and information they receive from confidential human sources. The FBI says such documents can contain uncorroborated and incomplete information, and that the record of a tip does not validate the information.

    The Biden document was written up by a longtime FBI source that both Republicans and Democrats have described as credible. In it, the source details an unverified tip received in 2020 about the business dealings of Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in Ukraine. Hunter Biden worked on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company.

    At the time, then-Attorney General William Barr told reporters that he was being cautious about information coming out of Ukraine. The House impeached then-President Donald Trump in 2020 over his push for the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens.

    ___

    WHY DO REPUBLICANS WANT THE RECORD?

    House Republicans have used their power in the majority to aggressively investigate Joe Biden and the business dealings of Hunter Biden, including examining foreign payments and other aspects of the family’s finances. Since January, Comer has obtained thousands of pages of financial records from Biden family members through subpoenas to the Treasury Department and various financial institutions

    In the contempt resolution against Wray, the Oversight Committee says foreign payments to members of the Biden family could have implications for national security. It said it needs the FBI record as it considers whether legislation is needed to fix “deficiencies” in the financial disclosure requirements that apply to presidents, vice presidents and their families.

    The committee is also demanding the FBI record be provided without redactions. The form that Comer has seen contained “a significant amount of highly relevant information to the Committee’s investigation” that was blacked out, the committee said, including the names of individuals who could be called in as witnesses.

    ___

    WHY IS THE FBI REFUSING TO TURN OVER THE DOCUMENT?

    The bureau has pushed back Comer’s threats to hold Wray in contempt and warned of grave risk to confidential human sources and the law enforcement process if the FBI record were released to the public.

    “Protecting the identities and information provided by confidential human sources from unnecessary disclosure or undue influence is therefore critical not only because of safety concerns but also to avoid chilling their candor or willingness to continue reporting to the FBI,” Christopher Dunham, an acting FBI assistant director, wrote to Comer last month.

    In an attempt to comply with the subpoena, FBI officials came to the Capitol on Monday to brief Comer and Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the panel, about the document. The briefing, which the bureau described as an “extraordinary accommodation,” lasted more than an hour and was conducted privately in a secure space because FBI officials said the “several-page” form contains sensitive information.

    Both Raskin and Comer received a slightly redacted copy of the FD-1023 document during the briefing and were allowed to take notes on the substance of the form, though they weren’t allowed to keep it.

    Frank Montoya, a former FBI supervisor who specialized in counterintelligence, said he worried that giving information about law enforcement sources to Congress could set a dangerous precedent and damage the FBI’s work.

    “Who’s going to want to come in and tell you things if your identity can’t be protected,”, especially in high-profile investigations, he said.

    Beyond that, Montoya said, distributing to Congress information that could theoretically be relevant in an ongoing investigation risks impeding it. “If I’m working on a case and you’re posting all my information online or in the newspapers or on the evening news…to make a political point — any chance I have of making that case” is at risk, Montoya said.

    ___

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    Comer said that the FBI briefing about the record was no substitute for providing a copy to the committee without redactions. He said he will move forward Thursday with holding Wray in contempt of Congress.

    “The investigation is not dead,” Comer told reporters. “This is only the beginning.”

    The first step in the contempt process will be holding a committee vote to send the resolution to the House floor. If the House approves that resolution and holds Wray in contempt, it would be up to the Justice Department — where Wray works — to decide whether to prosecute him.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told reporters he would bring the contempt resolution against Wray to the floor as soon as next week.

    Successful prosecutions for contempt of Congress are rare, though not unheard of. Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, was convicted by a jury on contempt charges last year after a referral from the House Jan. 6 committee.

    There’s also precedent for contempt charges against senior Justice Department figures. House Republicans approved a contempt charge against then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012, though the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington declined to bring a case.

    The FBI says the contempt vote is “unwarranted” considering the bureau had “continuously demonstrated its commitment to accommodate the committee’s request,” while protecting the safety of sources and the integrity of ongoing investigations.

    The White House dismissed Comer’s contempt push as “another fact-free stunt” intended to “damage the President politically and get himself media attention.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US Virgin Islands seeks to subpoena Elon Musk in Jeffrey Epstein lawsuit

    US Virgin Islands seeks to subpoena Elon Musk in Jeffrey Epstein lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands is trying to subpoena billionaire Elon Musk for documents in its lawsuit seeking to hold JPMorgan Chase liable for sex trafficking acts committed by businessman Jeffrey Epstein.

    Musk has never been publicly accused of any wrongdoing related to Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 as he awaited sex trafficking charges in a federal jail in Manhattan.

    But over the years, there had been unconfirmed speculation — encouraged by Epstein himself — that Epstein had advised Musk on certain business matters.

    Spokespeople for Musk have denied those reports, but the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands said in a court filing that it believes Epstein may have referred or tried to refer Musk to JPMorgan as a potential client.

    The Virgin Islands, where Epstein had an estate, sued JPMorgan last year, saying its investigation has revealed that the financial services giant enabled Epstein’s recruiters to pay victims and was “indispensable to the operation and concealment of the Epstein trafficking enterprise.”

    Lawyers for JPMorgan did not immediately return messages seeking comment Monday.

    In the past, they have said victims are entitled to justice but litigation attempting to blame the financial institution for Epstein’s actions were legally meritless, directed at the wrong party and should be dismissed.

    Authorities alleged that Epstein recruited and sexually abused dozens of underage girls at his mansions in New York and Palm Beach, Florida, in the early 2000s. He had pleaded not guilty.

    Lawyers for the Virgin Islands told a federal judge Monday that they haven’t been able to locate Musk to serve him with the subpoena.

    They asked the court to serve Tesla, his electric vehicle company, instead.

    They said they hired an investigative firm to search public records databases for possible addresses for Musk and reached out to one of his lawyers by email, but received no response.

    A message sent to a lawyer for Musk seeking comment Monday was not immediately returned.

    The subpoena — one of several sent to prominent business figures — sought documents from Jan. 1, 2002, to the present reflecting communications between Musk and JPMorgan or Musk and Epstein regarding Epstein or Epstein’s role in Musk’s accounts, transactions or financial management.

    It also sought all documents reflecting or regarding Epstein’s involvement in human trafficking and his procurement of girls or women for commercial sex.

    And it sought information about fees Musk might have paid to Epstein or JPMorgan and any documents concerning communications between Musk, Epstein and JPMorgan regarding accounts, transactions or the relationship at JPMorgan.

    [ad_2]

    Source link