Categories Uncategorized

Jan. 6 panel races to put together legislative proposal

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is eyeing a laundry list of tasks as it seeks to pull together a legislative package to prevent future insurrections.  

The committee for months has touted the legislative purpose to its investigation — a key detail as various subpoena recipients have sought to skirt compliance with the panel.  

But with the panel staring down a tight end-of-the-year deadline to complete its work, time is dwindling to introduce a package that could range from electoral reforms to enhanced criminal penalties. 

“We have some minor factual loose ends to wrap up, but then really what we need to do is to make our sweeping legislative recommendations about what needs to be done to fortify America against coups and insurrections and political violence in the future,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.). 

“We want to strengthen and fortify the electoral system and the right to vote. We want to do what we can to secure the situation of election workers and keep them safe from violence. We want to solidify the states in their determination that private armed militias not operate in the name of the state. You know, we don’t have any kind of federal law or policy about private armed militias,” Raskin added, saying the last point was a personal interest of his.  

Vice Chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) alluded to the wide range of legislative options as far back as October when the House was considering a contempt of Congress vote against onetime Trump strategist Stephen Bannon.  

She cited Trump’s dereliction of duty in watching the riot unfold while doing little if anything to stop it, saying, “We are evaluating whether our criminal laws should be enhanced to apply more consequences to this type of behavior.”

She also pointed to Trump’s call to pressure Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” more votes, saying the panel was contemplating enhanced penalties for such actions in general.

Cheney also floated that legislation could address Trump’s alleged pressure campaign at the Department of Justice. 

Trump’s attempt to reverse President Biden’s victory has also prompted the most publicly discussed efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.  

Senate lawmakers introduced legislation that would reform the Electoral Count Act in July. A companion bill was introduced in the House this week by two lawmakers who do not serve on the Jan. 6 committee.  

The bill seeks to clarify the role the vice president plays in certifying the results, specifically stating that it is purely ceremonial. The legislation also would raise the bar to successfully challenge a state’s Electoral College result, from just one House member and one senator from a state to 20 percent of a state’s congressional delegation.  

It also directly targets Trump’s fake elector scheme by largely leaving each state’s governor in charge of submitting electoral certificates to end the risk of any competing electors. 

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) has her own Electoral Reform Act bill in the works — one she said would go beyond the measures outlined in the Senate legislation. 

While she says work on it is being “buttoned up,” it’s not clear when it will drop — though it’s scheduled to go to the House floor next week. 

Lawmakers have been more secretive about what legislative measures they might consider beyond reforming the Electoral Count Act. 

“You’ve got to wait on the recommendations and the findings,” Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said in response to a question from The Hill.  

But they have offered some hints.  

Quinta Jurecic, a fellow at the Brooking Institution and a senior editor at Lawfare, said she’s seen ties between Cheney’s comments on the floor over a year ago and the structure of the hearings.  

“They’re definitely really looking at the sort of the criminal law aspect and this question of whether or not Trump personally could be held accountable which I think is consistent with the hearings so far where you saw they were really leaning in on Trump’s personal, moral and potentially legal culpability for the insurrection,” she said. 

Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania specializing in ethics, said there are already laws on the books that could be used to cover some of Trump’s behavior. 

“A call to [Georgia Secretary of State Brad] Raffensperger and anything like that is already illegal. So the idea that we should strengthen laws against interfering with elections on the part of a sitting president — we have all the laws we need. Or, for example, putting executive branch employees under political pressure to support his political campaign. That is a criminal violation of the Hatch Act,” she said. 

The Hatch Act, which bars coercing federal employees into political activity, has a little-known criminal provision, but it carries just a possible three-year prison sentence. 

But the committee could also look at placing more specific limitations of the office of the presidency or clarifying that its occupant is subject to certain criminal penalties. 

“There is very much an ongoing discussion about whether or not the presidency as a whole really sort of needs to be rethought in wake of the experience with Trump — that he sort of showed how much a bad faith executive can get away with,” Jurecic said. 

Finkelstein would like to see the panel specifically counter various memos from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel setting a policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. 

“That policy — which is grounded in nothing in the Constitution, and dictated by nothing in existing law, and in fact, in our view, contradicts existing law — is policy only. It’s not itself law,” she said. 

Any such legislation could face a difficult path forward in Congress, but the multiple bipartisan efforts to change the Electoral College Act suggest the more modest reforms stand the best chance for passage. 

But Raskin has said he would see such limited action as a failure. 

“Donald Trump didn’t set out to overthrow the Electoral Count Act, he set out to overthrow the election. And the election is far broader than just the Electoral Count Act,” he said. 

“We need to develop a comprehensive approach to guaranteeing voting rights and solidifying the electoral apparatus against coups and insurrections, political violence and electoral sabotage in the future,” he added. 

“If all we did was to say that the vice president does not have the authority to nullify Electoral College votes, then we will not have lived up to this moment,” Raskin said. 

Mychael Schnell contributed. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Minnesota physician PAC backs Gov. Walz for reelection in unconventional move

The Minnesota Medical Association’s PAC endorsed Gov. Tim Walz (D) in his campaign for reelection, in an unconventional move for the organization.

“In his four years leading Minnesota, Gov. Walz has demonstrated alignment with our core values of respect, honesty, and support for science and public health,” MEDPAC Chairman Will Nicholson said in a press release on Tuesday.

The endorsement represents a unique move for the PAC, which does not typically endorse candidates in state races, according to the Minnesota Medical Association.

“The ongoing global pandemic and other critical healthcare issues are at stake this year and that compelled the organization to support a candidate who would best advocate for the health of Minnesotans,” Nicholson added.

Nicholson cited Walz’s policies on COVID-19, reproductive health care and gun control in the PAC’s endorsement of the governor.

The PAC endorsed Walz over Republican nominee and fellow doctor Scott Jensen.

Jensen has said he is not vaccinated against COVID-19 and previously compared COVID-19 restrictions to those instituted during the rise of the Nazis in Germany, according to MPR News.

He also previously asserted that he supports an abortion ban in Minnesota without exceptions for rape and incest unless the mother’s life is in danger. However, he has since backtracked on that stance, saying he supports exceptions for victims of rape and incest as well, according to CNN.

Source: TEST FEED1

Fetterman trolls Oz, Mastriano with 'Jersey Boys' meme following reports of voter registration in NJ

Democratic Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman mocked Republican opponent Mehmet Oz and Republican Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano on Friday using a “Jersey Boys” meme following reports that the latter candidate was registered to vote in New Jersey until last year.

Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, responded to an article published by the New Jersey Globe that reported Mastriano was registered to vote in the state for 28 years until election officials changed his status to inactive last year.

The article also mentioned Oz’s past residence and record of voting in New Jersey and reported that the candidate could legally vote in the state if he chose not to vote in Pennsylvania.

Fetterman’s meme used an image from the musical “Jersey Boys” with images of Oz and Mastriano added.

The Democrat followed the meme with a video compilation of Oz discussing his residence in New Jersey, captioning the tweet: “He now refers to himself in ads as ‘Pennsylvania’s doctor.’ But he will always be JERSEY STRONG.”

The video included six instances of Oz saying, “I live in New Jersey” and one of him saying he is from the state.

Fetterman’s campaign has sought for months to portray Oz as a carpetbagger from New Jersey, employing various methods — including an airplane banner and a petition to add the Republican candidate to the New Jersey Hall of Fame — to troll him over the issue.

A Monmouth University poll released on Wednesday found that Fetterman had a 9-point lead over Oz in the race to replace Republican Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.).

Fetterman’s favorability rating among Pennsylvanians surveyed was 11 points higher than Oz’s, while Oz’s unfavorability rating was 14 points higher than Fetterman’s.

Meanwhile, a Monmouth University poll released on Friday found Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro leading Mastriano by 18 points.

The Hill has reached out to Oz and Mastriano for comment on the reports.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump attorney told National Archives boxes at Mar-a-Lago held only news clippings: reports

A former White House lawyer told the National Archives last year that boxes former President Trump took from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence held only news clippings, multiple outlets reported Friday.

The Washington Post first reported, citing people familiar, that former deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin told the Archives in a September 2021 call that Trump had only 12 boxes of news clippings at his Florida home, information Philbin said was relayed to him by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Philbin also said Meadows told him no documents had been destroyed, according to the outlet.

The government has recovered thousands of government documents from Mar-a-Lago since Trump left office, including more than 300 classified documents, according to The New York Times.

The Archives retrieved 15 boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago in January, finding 150 classified documents among them. Trump aides turned over more documents to the Justice Department in June, after the department began investigating the issue at the request of the Archives. An FBI search of Mar-a-Lago in August recovered another 27 boxes of documents, including more classified materials. 

Trump and the Justice Department remain locked in a legal battle over the documents, with a federal judge this week appointing Judge Raymond Dearie as special master to review materials seized from Mar-a-Lago.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who is presiding over the case, has blocked the Justice Department from accessing the classified documents until Dearie completes that review. The department appealed the decision on Friday.

Source: TEST FEED1

Youngkin rolls back accommodations for transgender students

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) released a set of policies Friday that roll back accommodations for transgender students in public schools.

The Virginia Department of Education released updated “model policies” mapping out treatment of transgender students in schools from use of names and pronouns to participation in activities and sporting events separated by sex.

The document seeks to withdraw 2021 “model policies” set forth by former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D) administration. The Youngkin administration states that it reviewed the “Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools” adopted in early March 2021.

“The 2021 Model Policies promoted a specific viewpoint aimed at achieving cultural and social transformation in schools,” the Youngkin administration wrote.

“The 2021 Model Policies also disregarded the rights of parents and ignored other legal and constitutional principles that significantly impact how schools educate students, including transgender students,” it added.

The document also addresses transgender students’ use of bathrooms and defines a transgender student as “a public school student whose parent has requested in writing, due to their child’s persistent and sincere belief that his or her gender differs from his or her sex, that their child be identified while at school.”

The Virginia Department of Education will now require students to be separated by their biological sex “for any school program, event, or activity, including extracurricular activities.”

In addition, overnight travel accommodations, locker rooms and “other intimate spaces used for school-related activities” shall be separated by sex. The policy notes that modifications will be made “only to the extent required” by federal law.

The 2021 guidelines released by Northam’s administration allowed transgender students to participate in activities and use restrooms and locker rooms that corresponded with their gender identity, according to The Washington Post.

The 2022 guidelines also require that schools keep parents informed about matters such as “their child’s health, and social and psychological development.”

Youngkin won the governor’s’ mansion in 2021 after running on the issues of parental choice and the teaching of critical race theory-related content, among others.

The new policies put forward by Youngkin’s government come amid a nationwide push by GOP-controlled states to limit transgender students from participating in activities and sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.

Republican-led legislatures have also moved to restrict gender-affirming care such as puberty blockers — which are reversible — to LGBT youth.

According to the Post, schools will be required to adopt these policies throughout the state after a 30-day comment period beginning on Sept. 26.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: Special master victory buys time for Trump

Former President Trump won a significant victory over investigators Thursday. If it stands, it will slow to a crawl the probe into how sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago were handled.

Unless an appeal filed by the government on Friday succeeds, major action in the probe now seems all but certain to be postponed past the midterm elections — by which time Trump might plausibly declare himself a 2024 presidential candidate. 

In that scenario, he can be expected to argue with even more gusto that he is being victimized for political reasons by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI. At a recent rally in Pennsylvania, Trump labeled the two organizations “vicious monsters.”

The win for Trump came when Judge Aileen Cannon announced Thursday that she would appoint Raymond Dearie, a semi-retired judge proposed by Trump’s legal team, as a so-called special master in the case that first burst into public view with the Aug. 8 FBI raid on the former president’s Florida club.

Cannon, herself a Trump appointee, favored the former president in other important ways, too. 

The typical role of a special master is to evaluate documents seized in a law enforcement raid to see if any might be privileged attorney-client communications — or private and without evidentiary worth.

Cannon held that Dearie could evaluate all the documents seized, including those marked classified, for this purpose. Around 11,000 documents were taken in the raid, with about 100 bearing classified markings.

The government has argued — including in its Friday appeal — that, even if Cannon insists on going ahead with the appointment of a special master, documents with classified markings should be exempt from the process. 

In essence, the government asserts that such documents cannot, by their nature, be Trump’s personal property and are self-evidently germane to the investigation.

But “the Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusion on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion,” Cannon wrote.

Moving forward, there are two other crucial aspects to Cannon’s latest decision. 

First, she has given the special master until Nov. 30 to complete his work, clogging some lines of investigation for at least six weeks.

Second, Cannon held fast to a controversial view. 

She asserts that it is possible to pause the use of the seized documents in a criminal probe, pending Dearie’s review, while at the same time proceeding with a separate process that would evaluate whether national security interests might be threatened.

Media reports have suggested that at least one seized document refers to a foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities. Several were categorized as “TS/SCI,” an abbreviation that stands for “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.” 

Cannon took an undisguised jab at investigators in her Thursday decision, noting that the main national security jeopardy in the case so far emanates from “the unwarranted disclosures [in] leaks to the media after the underlying seizure.”

The government had argued that the two strands being probed — national security implications and possible criminality — cannot be separated.

If the DOJ does not prevail in its appeal, legal experts say investigators face significant problems. 

Investigators cannot for now use the content of any of the seized documents in interviews with potential witnesses. In practical terms, that would seriously neuter the probe.

“How does one investigate issues relating to those documents from an intel standpoint if you still can’t share the contents?” said Mark Zaid, a D.C.-based attorney who specializes in cases related to national security.

“The first question, let’s say to a member of staff at Mar-a-Lago, might be, ‘Where did you see the classified document?’ And they say, ‘Which one?’ And the answer is, ‘We can’t tell you.’ The FBI runs out of steam within two questions.”

Zaid noted, however, that this does not necessarily remove all legal jeopardy faced by Trump or those close to him.

Previous filings have shown that one of the potential crimes being investigated is obstruction.

A case could be made that such a crime had taken place, without reference to the actual contents of the documents.

The chronology of events leading up and including the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago suggests that Trump and the people around him were subpoenaed to produce all documents bearing classified markings and said they had done so, when in fact they had not. 

That could be seen as evidence of a crime, regardless of the specifics of what the documents contain. 

In the real world, however, the DOJ might be reluctant to indict a former president at that stage when it might otherwise wait for the special master’s review to conclude.

Meanwhile, some legal observers are pushing back hard against Cannon’s decision.

“Judge Cannon wasn’t simply leaning in Trump’s direction but falling at his feet,” said Harry Litman, a former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Dearie has directed counsel for the respective sides to appear in a federal courthouse in Brooklyn, N.Y., on Tuesday for a “preliminary conference.”

Complicating matters further, Cannon has permitted Dearie to evaluate the documents for whether Trump might justifiably exert executive privilege — not merely attorney-client privilege — over any of them.

The nuances of the legal arguments don’t disguise the underlying realities.

A Trump-appointed judge has placed a significant speed-bump in the way of the investigation.

The obstacle may be cleared on appeal. 

If it is not, prosecutors face a frustratingly slow road ahead.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Source: TEST FEED1

Cracks in GOP emerge over abortion policy and messaging

Republicans are squabbling over policy and messaging surrounding abortion amid mounting evidence that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is hurting the GOP ahead of midterms. 

Most Republicans supported overturning Roe v. Wade, and the number of pro-abortion rights Republicans in Congress is dwindling. But GOP lawmakers disagree on the next move to make, and many think legislation calling for strict bans on abortion will only compound their problems. 

Legislation introduced this week to impose a nationwide abortion ban after 15 weeks of gestation, with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, highlighted fissures in the party over the issue.  

Many party members would prefer to steer the national conversation toward soaring inflation and an economy that could be headed toward a recession rather than abortion restrictions 50 days before the midterms. 

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said that while he has supported a 15-week ban in Nebraska, he had heard pushback to the federal bill for taking the focus away from economic issues — an argument where Republicans have seen success.  

“The average family has had a pay raise of 4 percent, but yet inflation for food is, like, 13 percent. That’s what we should be talking about. So that’s probably the main pushback,” Bacon said. 

It is unlikely that any major anti-abortion legislation could make it out of the next Congress because of the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) led the “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act” in the Senate, and a House version was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a decades-long advocate against abortion. 

When asked about critics who say that the height of the midterm season is the wrong time to introduce this kind of bill, Smith said: “There’s never the right time.” 

“It is the time to draw a contrast,” Smith added, to Democratic legislation that he said would “eviscerate every modest pro-life policy enacted over 50 years — women’s right to know laws, waiting periods, parental notification statutes.” 

Graham also argued in a press conference on Tuesday that the bill offered an alternative to Democratic legislation to codify abortion rights that he said went too far.  

A core part of the GOP response to Roe v. Wade’s fall is trying to redirect attention on Democrats and paint them as having extreme positions on abortion. 

A messaging memo that the Republican National Committee sent to candidates this week asserted that a majority of voters disagree with allowing abortion at any time in pregnancy and for any reason.  

“Go on offense, explain how it is your opponent who has no exceptions to their abortion position,” it advised. 

But not all Republicans agree with taking federal action on abortion, which can put the GOP back on the defense. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) threw cold water on Graham’s bill, saying that “most of the members of my conference prefer this be dealt with at the state level.” 

Yet, some anti-abortion advocates saw Graham’s bill as a middle ground Republicans could rally around, taking the focus away from Republican-led states that have near-total bans and make little exceptions. 

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who has been vocal in supporting such exceptions due in part to her own experience with sexual assault, said that she appreciated the exceptions in the bill. But she took issue with some of the details. 

The bill requires that abortions on minors past 15 weeks could only be performed if the rape had been reported to a government agency authorized to act on reports of child abuse, or law enforcement agency. 

“That gives me some heartburn, because one of the reasons that women don’t come forward with this abuse and the sexual trauma and sexual assault and rape that they’ve been through, is because of what happens when people find out the way that they’re attacked for it,” Mace said.  

“And I know this firsthand, because when I told my story, you should have seen the way that people commented about, the way that I was treated by even my own colleagues in the state legislature. It was disgusting.” 

Pushback to the bill has also come from the political right. Staunch conservatives have said that they are unwilling appear as if they’re compromising on their anti-abortion stance.  

“If you’re a representative for a district in a state that has more restrictive abortion laws than 15 weeks, you wouldn’t be for that,” said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.).  

Smith, the lead sponsor of the House bill, said concerns from colleagues that the bill might override stricter abortion bans in states are a misconception. He stressed that is not the case. 

While it would preempt abortion rights laws in states like New York and California, it would not override Ohio’s 6-week ban or near-total bans in other states. 

“There are at least 55,000 abortions every year at 15 weeks or beyond. And that is a huge loss of life,” Smith said. 

The 15-week bill is an updated version of 20-week abortion ban legislation that previously passed in Republican-controlled Houses in 2013, 2015 and 2017. But House GOP leaders have declined to commit to bring up the 15-week abortion ban legislation if they win the majority. 

“First we’d need to see what our majority looks like,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said in a news conference on Wednesday. 

Smith said that the debate of how to move forward on anti-abortion legislation is healthy. 

“There’s always people who don’t know what is the right thing to do, and that’s as healthy as it could be. I think we need to have more conference meetings, you know, so we’re all on the same page,” Smith said. “But Dobbs has been [the] engraved invitation to protect life.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Merrick Garland faces stormy waters over Trump investigations

The convergence of investigations against former President Trump, led by the FBI’s search of his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida for classified materials, has put Attorney General Merrick Garland at the center of a political storm.

Republicans, led by former President Trump, have attacked Garland’s Justice Department as politically motivated and vowed to investigate his actions if the party retakes the House in November.

Democrats have mostly given Garland the space to do his job, but some liberals have argued there is already clear evidence to indict Trump and questioned why the attorney general is not pressing forward.

For some experts and those who know Garland, the former judge’s demeanor makes him the right man for the job at a time when all eyes are on him.

“I don’t think he’s paralyzed and afraid to act,” said Alan Morrison, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School who has known Garland for years. “Getting the search warrant was a big step against the former president. He’s shown he’s willing to take significant action. But I think the country is better off having a cautious person there than somebody who would have made a decision just to make a decision.”

After four years of the Trump Justice Department facing political pressure from the president and being accused of tilting the scales to benefit the party in the White House, President Biden pledged to restore a sense of independence to the agency and appointed Garland, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2016 but never got a hearing from Republicans.

Garland was confirmed with a bipartisan vote, 70-30, in March 2021. But efforts to depoliticize the Justice Department have run into a major obstacle with a burst of activity in investigations into Trump, thrusting Garland into the spotlight.

Some Democrats had already been airing frustrations over what they viewed as a glacial pace in probing Trump’s actions around Jan. 6, 2021. Those criticisms bubbled to the surface as a House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol held public hearings with damning new allegations about Trump’s rhetoric before the 6th and inaction on the day of the attack.

The FBI’s August search of Mar-a-Lago to recover highly sensitive government materials that Trump had taken with him has only added to the clamor from some liberals for Garland to take action against the former president. 

Adding to the criticism, James Zirin, a former federal prosecutor who served in former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s (D) administration, wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill that Garland may have made a misstep in the Justice Department’s handling of the Mar-a-Lago case after Judge Aileen Cannon ruled a special master should be appointed to sift through seized documents.

Meanwhile, Garland and his agency have taken fire from Republicans who have almost universally rallied around Trump and accused the attorney general and FBI director of leading a political witch hunt.

Some Republican lawmakers have pledged to investigate Garland if the GOP retakes the House majority in November. Others have broadly bemoaned that the attorney general has “weaponized” the Justice Department in approving the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago, even though it followed months of attempts to get the sensitive documents back from Trump.

Trump himself has not directly called out the attorney general, but he has been unrelenting in accusing the FBI and Justice Department more broadly of targeting him out of concern he may run for president again in 2024.

“What they did is terrible,” Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday. “And I don’t think the people are going to stand for it. If you noticed, the poll numbers are the highest they’ve ever been. The people are not going to stand for this stuff. They’ve weaponized the Department of Justice and FBI.”

Garland for his part has steadfastly avoided weighing in publicly unless he believes it is absolutely necessary, as was the case after the FBI conducted its search of Mar-a-Lago.

He has pushed back on the idea that he or his team will be influenced by political considerations or public pressure one way or another.

“The only pressure that I, my prosecutors, or the agents feel is the pressure to do the right thing,” Garland told NBC News in a rare interview in July. “That’s the only way we can pursue the rule of law, that’s the only way we can keep the confidence of the American people in the rule of law, which is an essential part of our democratic system.”

Biden formally introduced Garland as his pick to lead the Justice Department on Jan. 7, 2021, one day after the riots at the Capitol. Given the timing, and the fact that the Mar-a-Lago case only recently came into public view, experts argued Garland was clearly not chosen with his ability to withstand public pressure about Trump-related probes in mind.

But the former president was always going to hang over much of what the Biden Justice Department did given various investigations into Trump’s finances, his claims about the 2020 election and his conduct on Jan. 6.

“They are clearly tough-minded and not treating Trump as if he’s above the law,” said Matt Bennett, a former staffer in the Clinton White House and co-founder of the think tank Third Way. “But they are also incredibly prudent, sensitive to the charge of politicizing the department. It’s a tough balance, but I think he’s getting it all right.”

Source: TEST FEED1

DOJ appeals to gain access to seized Mar-a-Lago docs

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday asked a federal court for access to classified documents seized last month from Mar-a-Lago, appealing a lower court ruling that has barred prosecutors from using those materials while investigating former President Trump’s handling of government records.

In a new motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, DOJ officials said the materials taken from Trump’s South Florida estate include highly sensitive documents, and that denying prosecutors immediate access to those records would delay their investigation at a heightened risk to national security.

“By enjoining the review and use of the records bearing classification markings for criminal-investigative purposes, the district court’s order impedes the government’s efforts to protect the Nation’s security,” the filing reads.  

“The records here are not merely relevant evidence; they are the very objects of the offense.”

Citing “irreparable injury” to both the government and the public, the DOJ is asking the appeals court to rule “as soon as practicable.”

The move was no surprise.

After a Trump-appointed federal judge had ruled in favor of the former president earlier in the month, blocking the DOJ’s access to the disputed documents, the department said it would appeal to a higher court if the decision was not partially reversed. The judge, Aileen Cannon, denied the motion on Thursday evening, triggering the DOJ’s appeal to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, where six of the 11 justices were nominated by Trump.

While the DOJ’s arguments to the appellate court are nearly identical to those presented to Cannon, prosecutors are hoping for a different outcome from a different audience. Their reasoning leans heavily on the idea — supported by legal precedents and federal law — that virtually all presidential records are the property of the government, to be turned over to the National Archives at the end of one’s tenure. 

“[E]ven if an assertion of privilege might justify withholding the records at issue from Congress or the public, there would be no basis for withholding them from the Executive Branch itself,” the DOJ wrote.

The appeal is the latest legal salvo in a weeks-long battle between Trump and the Biden administration over which party — the government or the former president — has lawful rights to more than 11,000 documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. Roughly 100 of those were labeled confidential, to some degree, and one was related to the military capacity of an unnamed foreign government, including its nuclear defenses, according to The Washington Post.

The extraordinary search followed months of fragile negotiations between the two sides, as well as assurances from Trump’s lawyers that any government materials stored at the Florida compound had been returned to the National Archives earlier in the year. 

The process is a delicate one for the Department of Justice, not only because the investigation targets a former president, but also because Trump is eyeing another run at the White House in 2024. He and his supporters say the Biden administration is simply conducting a political witch hunt to damage his prospects. 

With its new filing, the DOJ is seeking to overturn a series of decisions passed down this month by Cannon, who was among the last of Trump’s judicial nominees to be confirmed, following his election defeat. 

In her initial ruling on Sept. 5, Cannon had granted Trump’s request for an independent arbiter, known as a special master, to sift through the seized materials. Until that review is complete, Cannon ruled, federal prosecutors may not use the sensitive documents in their criminal probe. She said the government’s central argument — that Trump, as a former president, has no right to claim executive privilege — “arguably overstates the law.”

Three days later, the DOJ had requested a partial reversal of that decision, asking Cannon to allow the agency access to the roughly 100 confidential documents to guide the most urgent part of its investigation. The special master could remain, the department proposed, but with access only to the unclassified materials. 

“[Trump] does not and could not assert that he owns or has any possessory interest in classified records,” the DOJ wrote in that Sept. 8 filing. 

In denying that request, Cannon said she had no way of knowing if the classified documents were indeed classified, as the department asserted. She also rejected the idea that Trump has no legal right to executive privilege. 

“The court does not find it appropriate to accept the government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues,” she wrote Thursday, “without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion.”

In a carve-out, Cannon had allowed federal intelligence agencies to have continued access to the documents to conduct a separate damage assessment. But the DOJ said the two parallel probes were “inextricably linked.” As a result, even the security assessment is on hold “temporarily” while the court fight plays out. 

How long that takes remains unclear.

Cannon’s ruling on Thursday stipulated that the special master would have until Nov. 30 to complete the job — a shorter window than Trump had requested, but much longer than the mid-October deadline the DOJ had proposed. 

That could push any final resolution until after the midterm elections, although many legal experts critical of Cannon’s reasoning — including Trump’s former Attorney General William Barr — are predicting the 11th Circuit would move swiftly in siding with the DOJ. 

“I don’t think it’s going to take very much to overturn it,” George Conway, a prominent conservative attorney, told CNN Thursday night, referring to Cannon’s latest ruling. “This opinion is absolutely atrocious.”

Cannon’s latest ruling also named the figure who will assume the special master role: Raymond Dearie, a New York-based federal district judge, appointed by President Reagan, who still serves in that role on a limited basis. Dearie also served for seven years on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as FISA, which oversees wiretapping and other highly secret government programs targeting subjects overseas. 

Proposed by Trump’s team, Dearie was the sole figure among four candidates that both sides had endorsed. 

Cannon has instructed Dearie to prioritize the confidential materials and then “consider prompt adjustments to the court’s orders as necessary.” That stipulation was a potential, if rare, victory for the DOJ in its fight with Cannon, seeming to empower Dearie to clear those 100 documents for the FBI’s use immediately after his review. 

Dearie has asked lawyers for both camps to meet with him on Tuesday in New York to launch the process.   

Updated at 10:14 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump looks to boost Vance in tense Ohio Senate race

Former President Trump is heading to Ohio on Saturday to give a boost to his endorsed Senate candidate J.D. Vance (R) in a race that has proven more competitive than initially thought. 

The “Hillbilly Elegy” author, a once-Trump-critic-turned-acolyte, is facing off against Democratic challenger Tim Ryan (D) for the open Senate seat in a state Trump won by 8 points in 2020. 

Still, recent polling has shown Vance leading Ryan by single digits, and the Democrat has proven to be a formidable fundraiser, fueling hopes that Democrats could pull off a surprise victory in the Buckeye State. 

“It’s been a real pleasant surprise,” Ohio-based Democratic strategist Aaron Pickrell said of the two polling competitively, adding, “it’s purely a testament of the fact that Tim’s just really connected with people, and I think Vance has … been framed in a really negative light.”  

“He’s got the combination of someone that has a personal ability to connect really well with voters just because of who he is, and then backed up with a record of accomplishments that really resonate with Ohioans across … the state,” he said, noting Ryan’s work on jobs and pensions. 

A new survey from Emerson College and The Hill released on Friday showed Vance leading Ryan 44 percent to 40 percent. Thirteen percent of voters said they were undecided, while 3 percent said they planned to vote for someone else. Meanwhile, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released earlier this week showed Ryan leading Vance 46.6 percent to 45.6 percent.  

But Republicans say they feel confident about their chances in the state given some of Ohio’s political red leanings.  

“Of all the states on the map, I think this is the one I worry about the least, truthfully … because Ohio has just trended so Republican,” said Scott Jennings, a GOP strategist who has served as an adviser to past campaigns for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), adding, “it’s the best state on the board candidly for Republicans holding a seat.” 

While Senate races in states like Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia have received more media attention, the Ohio Senate is still a critical one as Republicans look to flip the upper chamber in November. Ryan and Vance are vying for Sen. Rob Portman’s (Ohio) seat, after the Republican said he wouldn’t be seeking reelection following his current term.  

Democrats have sought to portray Vance as an out-of-state candidate, targeting him in ads for flip-flopping on his criticism of Trump and hammering him on issues like the opioid crisis, including airing ads scrutinizing a non-profit Vance created aimed at tackling addiction in the state.  

Meanwhile, Vance’s campaign has argued that Ryan is not the moderate Democrat he portrays himself to be. Republicans also suggest that, despite the fact that Ryan has at times distanced himself from President Biden, it will be hard to separate the two Democrats.  

The congressman has toed the line on appearing with Biden, citing a scheduling conflict as reason for missing Biden’s visit in the state in July while appearing with the president at a new Intel semiconductor facility in the state earlier this month.  

“Tim is the face of this campaign. This campaign is about Tim Ryan. It’s about Ohio. It’s about people here and unlike J.D. Vance, we don’t have to rely on big names and shiny objects getting bused in from out of state,” a source close to Ryan’s campaign said when asked why the congressman was maintaining distance from the president. 

Ryan made headlines last week when he appeared to call for “a generational move” for Democratic leadership when asked about Biden running for another term. However, he later clarified the remarks.  

“The President said from the very beginning he was going to be a bridge to the next generation, which is basically what I was saying,” Ryan said.  

The same poll from Emerson College and The Hill found Trump leading Biden 50 percent to 40 percent in the state. 

But in a Senate race that might otherwise be considered a sleeper, Ryan has been one of a slew of Senate Democratic challengers who have out-fundraised their competitors, at least in the last quarter. Ryan’s campaign reported they had raised $9.1 million in the second quarter alone while Vance’s campaign hauled in over $2.3 million in contrast. 

“Frankly, the biggest struggle that we had fundraising-wise, early on, was just the simple fact that so many donors weren’t paying attention to the race because they didn’t think they needed to,” a source close to the Vance campaign said, later adding, “the change in that attitude has led to the increased fundraising.” 

The source said that the campaign was seeing “a dramatic uptick” in fundraising in the third quarter compared to the second. The person also suggested that the amount of money Ryan had raised and spent on TV buys earlier this cycle didn’t amount to much given that the two were polling within the margin of error. 

Republicans have also made it clear this cycle that they’re not shying away from the state. The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC with ties to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said $28 million was being reserved for statewide advertising between Sept. 6 until Nov. 8. 

“I don’t think it’s gonna be one of those things where it’s like some massive advantage because of his fundraising, but it’s the table stakes of ensuring that he can communicate who he is and why people should support him,” Pickrell, the Democratic strategist, said of Ryan’s numbers. 

Ryan’s fundraising success comes as Democrats express more optimism about their chances of retaining control of the Senate. However, Republicans are pushing back against the notion that Ohio will be a saving grace for Democrats come November.  

“What you’re seeing in other states is different than what’s going to happen in Ohio,” said one Ohio-based Republican strategist. “Other states like Pennsylvania just shit the bed on their primaries and nominated really awful candidates and that didn’t really happen in Ohio for the most part.”  

“As far as predictions, you know, we have always thought … we would keep this seat red, and I think that is still going to be the case. Vance is running a good race. And then Tim Ryan, for as much as he flip-flops, that is helping us as well,” a spokesperson for the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm concurred.  

It’s unclear if Trump’s visit will boost Vance the same way his endorsement boosted him in the Republican Senate primary earlier this year. Trump won Ohio by eight points in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.  

“The guy won the state by eight and a half points twice,” the GOP strategist said. “I think that probably for the most part still holds.”  

The rally’s location in Youngstown is not only strategic because it’s part of Ryan’s district, but it’s also seen a rightward political shift since Trump first ran for president in 2016.  

“He’s basically holding this event in the Mahoning Valley, which is a significant block of what would be considered Trump Republicans and he’s going to go there and he’s going to energize them,” the GOP strategist. “It’s strategically smart.”  

Multiple Democratic strategists suggested the rally could help Vance.  

“It’s like the one card J.D. has to play, I guess, to try to bring Trump into state to boost his campaign,” said one strategist. 

Source: TEST FEED1