President-elect Donald Trump vowed throughout his presidential campaign to seek retribution against special counsel Jack Smith, who brought criminal charges against Trump that Republicans widely criticized as unfair.

Trump and his Republican allies in Congress, who will have complete control of Washington beginning in January, now aim to turn the tables and investigate Smith’s dual prosecutions of the president-elect.

Senate and House Judiciary committee members have sent preservation notices to Smith, telling him to save his records related to Trump, a sign that the lawmakers intend to summon testimony and documents from the special counsel next year.

TRUMP DEFENDERS POISED TO GO ON OFFENSE AT DOJ

Meanwhile, Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, said last year in a now-viral comment that “the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones,” signaling alignment with Trump’s mission to punish Smith for his work.

Smith was forced to terminate both of his cases against Trump, and his office plans to, according to reports, disband before Trump enters the White House. At the same time, Smith and his team are plotting out how best to respond to the anticipated GOP inquiries.

Below are top grievances against Smith that could become subjects of investigations.

1. Smith’s court activity during final campaign weeks

Smith raised eyebrows by filing a behemoth motion in court in October, a month out from the presidential election, in an attempt to defend his Jan. 6 case against Trump in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling.

The document contained details that Smith was deprived of presenting in a trial (since the case never moved to a trial stage), including damning and unflattering grand jury material about how Trump went about objecting to the 2020 election results.

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig called the move an “October cheap shot,” blasting Smith for defying Department of Justice policy that prohibits prosecutorial activity that could affect an election.

Former assistant U.S. attorney Jack Goldsmith said the move was “in clear tension with the Justice Department’s 60-day rule” and that Smith owed the public an explanation for how the filing did not constitute election interference.

2. Bratt and Cooney

House Republicans have been seeking records from the DOJ for various misconduct allegations, including against two of Smith’s prosecutors, Jay Bratt and J.P. Cooney.

A misconduct allegation against Bratt was first raised in court by an attorney representing Walt Nauta, one of the co-defendants in the classified documents case against Trump. The attorney, Stanley Woodward, said that during a closed-door meeting, Bratt violated ethics rules by bringing up Woodward’s application to become a judge while Bratt was trying to goad Woodward into complying with him in the Trump case. Smith has disputed the accusation.

Cooney’s allegation relates to a prior case when he helped prosecute Trump ally Roger Stone for lying to Congress. According to a DOJ inspector general report, Cooney wanted to impose an unusually harsh sentence on Stone, and when he was overridden, he claimed that the Trump administration gave Stone preferential treatment. The DOJ inspector general assessed in his report that this was not a “well considered” move by Cooney, but Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has continued to demand more information about it.

3. Using a DC grand jury in a Florida case

Some legal analysts, such as William Shipley, who has served as counsel for dozens of Jan. 6 defendants, have questioned why Smith used a Washington-based grand jury to bring charges against Trump in Florida over his handling of classified documents.

“He was almost certain to have greater success [in Washington] in trying to evade attorney-client privilege claims, to conduct the investigation into the classified documents case that almost certainly was going to be venued in Florida,” Shipley stated on X.

Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who presided over the case, ordered Smith last year to “address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding.”

Smith replied that he was appropriately using the Washington grand jury to investigate narrow allegations of false statements, even if it had “incidental” advantages in the broader classified documents case.

4. ‘Conspiracy against rights’

Trump has called for Smith to be arrested, but it remains unclear what charges Smith could face for his work.

Article III Project founder Mike Davis, a fervent Trump supporter, recently teased a federal law associated with law enforcement misconduct and hate crimes, known as conspiracy against rights.

“Jack Smith and his office must face severe legal, political, and financial consequences for their blatant lawfare and election interference,” Davis said.

5. Early underlying political motivations

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has long raised concerns about politically driven investigators in authoritative roles at the FBI, including one who Grassley said helped Smith in the early stages of his investigations into Trump.

The former longtime special agent, Timothy Thibault, who handled public corruption matters in the Washington Field Office, drew attention from Grassley and other Republicans in 2022 based on whistleblower disclosures. Grassley has since tied him to Smith’s case.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Jack Smith court filing released 2day is part of case started by former FBI official Thibault who was forced 2retire bc of extreme anti-Trump political bias my oversight revealed This case was politicized frm start Releasing info this way reeks of undeniable partisan tactics,” Grassley recently wrote in an X post.

Grassley also suggested in a letter last month to the DOJ that he planned to examine Thibault’s role in Smith’s work when the GOP takes control of the Senate.

2024-12-27 12:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3267883%2Fjack-smith-moments-republicans-could-investigate%2F?w=600&h=450, President-elect Donald Trump vowed throughout his presidential campaign to seek retribution against special counsel Jack Smith, who brought criminal charges against Trump that Republicans widely criticized as unfair. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress, who will have complete control of Washington beginning in January, now aim to turn the tables and investigate Smith’s dual prosecutions of the,

President-elect Donald Trump vowed throughout his presidential campaign to seek retribution against special counsel Jack Smith, who brought criminal charges against Trump that Republicans widely criticized as unfair.

Trump and his Republican allies in Congress, who will have complete control of Washington beginning in January, now aim to turn the tables and investigate Smith’s dual prosecutions of the president-elect.

Senate and House Judiciary committee members have sent preservation notices to Smith, telling him to save his records related to Trump, a sign that the lawmakers intend to summon testimony and documents from the special counsel next year.

TRUMP DEFENDERS POISED TO GO ON OFFENSE AT DOJ

Meanwhile, Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, said last year in a now-viral comment that “the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones,” signaling alignment with Trump’s mission to punish Smith for his work.

Smith was forced to terminate both of his cases against Trump, and his office plans to, according to reports, disband before Trump enters the White House. At the same time, Smith and his team are plotting out how best to respond to the anticipated GOP inquiries.

Below are top grievances against Smith that could become subjects of investigations.

1. Smith’s court activity during final campaign weeks

Smith raised eyebrows by filing a behemoth motion in court in October, a month out from the presidential election, in an attempt to defend his Jan. 6 case against Trump in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling.

The document contained details that Smith was deprived of presenting in a trial (since the case never moved to a trial stage), including damning and unflattering grand jury material about how Trump went about objecting to the 2020 election results.

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig called the move an “October cheap shot,” blasting Smith for defying Department of Justice policy that prohibits prosecutorial activity that could affect an election.

Former assistant U.S. attorney Jack Goldsmith said the move was “in clear tension with the Justice Department’s 60-day rule” and that Smith owed the public an explanation for how the filing did not constitute election interference.

2. Bratt and Cooney

House Republicans have been seeking records from the DOJ for various misconduct allegations, including against two of Smith’s prosecutors, Jay Bratt and J.P. Cooney.

A misconduct allegation against Bratt was first raised in court by an attorney representing Walt Nauta, one of the co-defendants in the classified documents case against Trump. The attorney, Stanley Woodward, said that during a closed-door meeting, Bratt violated ethics rules by bringing up Woodward’s application to become a judge while Bratt was trying to goad Woodward into complying with him in the Trump case. Smith has disputed the accusation.

Cooney’s allegation relates to a prior case when he helped prosecute Trump ally Roger Stone for lying to Congress. According to a DOJ inspector general report, Cooney wanted to impose an unusually harsh sentence on Stone, and when he was overridden, he claimed that the Trump administration gave Stone preferential treatment. The DOJ inspector general assessed in his report that this was not a “well considered” move by Cooney, but Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has continued to demand more information about it.

3. Using a DC grand jury in a Florida case

Some legal analysts, such as William Shipley, who has served as counsel for dozens of Jan. 6 defendants, have questioned why Smith used a Washington-based grand jury to bring charges against Trump in Florida over his handling of classified documents.

“He was almost certain to have greater success [in Washington] in trying to evade attorney-client privilege claims, to conduct the investigation into the classified documents case that almost certainly was going to be venued in Florida,” Shipley stated on X.

Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who presided over the case, ordered Smith last year to “address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding.”

Smith replied that he was appropriately using the Washington grand jury to investigate narrow allegations of false statements, even if it had “incidental” advantages in the broader classified documents case.

4. ‘Conspiracy against rights’

Trump has called for Smith to be arrested, but it remains unclear what charges Smith could face for his work.

Article III Project founder Mike Davis, a fervent Trump supporter, recently teased a federal law associated with law enforcement misconduct and hate crimes, known as conspiracy against rights.

“Jack Smith and his office must face severe legal, political, and financial consequences for their blatant lawfare and election interference,” Davis said.

5. Early underlying political motivations

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has long raised concerns about politically driven investigators in authoritative roles at the FBI, including one who Grassley said helped Smith in the early stages of his investigations into Trump.

The former longtime special agent, Timothy Thibault, who handled public corruption matters in the Washington Field Office, drew attention from Grassley and other Republicans in 2022 based on whistleblower disclosures. Grassley has since tied him to Smith’s case.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Jack Smith court filing released 2day is part of case started by former FBI official Thibault who was forced 2retire bc of extreme anti-Trump political bias my oversight revealed This case was politicized frm start Releasing info this way reeks of undeniable partisan tactics,” Grassley recently wrote in an X post.

Grassley also suggested in a letter last month to the DOJ that he planned to examine Thibault’s role in Smith’s work when the GOP takes control of the Senate.

, President-elect Donald Trump vowed throughout his presidential campaign to seek retribution against special counsel Jack Smith, who brought criminal charges against Trump that Republicans widely criticized as unfair. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress, who will have complete control of Washington beginning in January, now aim to turn the tables and investigate Smith’s dual prosecutions of the president-elect. Senate and House Judiciary committee members have sent preservation notices to Smith, telling him to save his records related to Trump, a sign that the lawmakers intend to summon testimony and documents from the special counsel next year. TRUMP DEFENDERS POISED TO GO ON OFFENSE AT DOJ Meanwhile, Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, said last year in a now-viral comment that “the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones,” signaling alignment with Trump’s mission to punish Smith for his work. Smith was forced to terminate both of his cases against Trump, and his office plans to, according to reports, disband before Trump enters the White House. At the same time, Smith and his team are plotting out how best to respond to the anticipated GOP inquiries. Below are top grievances against Smith that could become subjects of investigations. 1. Smith’s court activity during final campaign weeks Smith raised eyebrows by filing a behemoth motion in court in October, a month out from the presidential election, in an attempt to defend his Jan. 6 case against Trump in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling. The document contained details that Smith was deprived of presenting in a trial (since the case never moved to a trial stage), including damning and unflattering grand jury material about how Trump went about objecting to the 2020 election results. Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig called the move an “October cheap shot,” blasting Smith for defying Department of Justice policy that prohibits prosecutorial activity that could affect an election. Former assistant U.S. attorney Jack Goldsmith said the move was “in clear tension with the Justice Department’s 60-day rule” and that Smith owed the public an explanation for how the filing did not constitute election interference. 2. Bratt and Cooney House Republicans have been seeking records from the DOJ for various misconduct allegations, including against two of Smith’s prosecutors, Jay Bratt and J.P. Cooney. A misconduct allegation against Bratt was first raised in court by an attorney representing Walt Nauta, one of the co-defendants in the classified documents case against Trump. The attorney, Stanley Woodward, said that during a closed-door meeting, Bratt violated ethics rules by bringing up Woodward’s application to become a judge while Bratt was trying to goad Woodward into complying with him in the Trump case. Smith has disputed the accusation. Cooney’s allegation relates to a prior case when he helped prosecute Trump ally Roger Stone for lying to Congress. According to a DOJ inspector general report, Cooney wanted to impose an unusually harsh sentence on Stone, and when he was overridden, he claimed that the Trump administration gave Stone preferential treatment. The DOJ inspector general assessed in his report that this was not a “well considered” move by Cooney, but Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has continued to demand more information about it. 3. Using a DC grand jury in a Florida case Some legal analysts, such as William Shipley, who has served as counsel for dozens of Jan. 6 defendants, have questioned why Smith used a Washington-based grand jury to bring charges against Trump in Florida over his handling of classified documents. “He was almost certain to have greater success [in Washington] in trying to evade attorney-client privilege claims, to conduct the investigation into the classified documents case that almost certainly was going to be venued in Florida,” Shipley stated on X. Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who presided over the case, ordered Smith last year to “address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding.” Smith replied that he was appropriately using the Washington grand jury to investigate narrow allegations of false statements, even if it had “incidental” advantages in the broader classified documents case. 4. ‘Conspiracy against rights’ Trump has called for Smith to be arrested, but it remains unclear what charges Smith could face for his work. Article III Project founder Mike Davis, a fervent Trump supporter, recently teased a federal law associated with law enforcement misconduct and hate crimes, known as conspiracy against rights. “Jack Smith and his office must face severe legal, political, and financial consequences for their blatant lawfare and election interference,” Davis said. 5. Early underlying political motivations Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has long raised concerns about politically driven investigators in authoritative roles at the FBI, including one who Grassley said helped Smith in the early stages of his investigations into Trump. The former longtime special agent, Timothy Thibault, who handled public corruption matters in the Washington Field Office, drew attention from Grassley and other Republicans in 2022 based on whistleblower disclosures. Grassley has since tied him to Smith’s case. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER “Jack Smith court filing released 2day is part of case started by former FBI official Thibault who was forced 2retire bc of extreme anti-Trump political bias my oversight revealed This case was politicized frm start Releasing info this way reeks of undeniable partisan tactics,” Grassley recently wrote in an X post. Grassley also suggested in a letter last month to the DOJ that he planned to examine Thibault’s role in Smith’s work when the GOP takes control of the Senate., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/jack-smith-surprise.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,

A man facing charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was detained this week over allegations that he made threatening posts on social media about Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and other officials.

A judge granted Department of Justice prosecutors’ request to rearrest Bradley Nelson, who was out on bail from his first arrest in March 2023 in connection with the Capitol breach, according to a court order.

Prosecutors said Nelson posted an image of Barrett alongside a vicious comment in June 2024.

“I pray to God with all my [expletive] heart that somebody cuts your [expletive] throat from ear to ear you worthless piece of [expletive],” Nelson wrote, according to prosecutors.

Nelson allegedly made the post one hour after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Fischer v. United States, a ruling that could be favorable for Nelson because it involves one of the Jan. 6 charges he is facing. Barrett sided with three liberal justices in a dissenting opinion.

Nelson posted an image in July 2024 of Garland with crosshairs drawn on his head and an image in February 2024 of New York Attorney General Letitia James with crosshairs on her head, prosecutors said.

Nelson allegedly commented on the image of James that he would “give every [expletive] thing I have to watch that [expletive]’s head explode, or at least the back of her head blowout.”

In June, Nelson also posted videos where he made excessively “combative and confrontational” remarks about two FBI agents involved in his Jan. 6 case, including saying he wants to get into “the MMA ring with you two pieces of [expletive],” according to prosecutors.

Nelson is due to appear at some point for a revocation hearing where his detention will be examined further.

“While that date has not been set, the Court finds sufficient basis for detention for that (hopefully brief) period due to Nelson’s escalating rhetoric,” the judge wrote.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The judge expressed the most concern about Nelson’s alleged comments directed toward the FBI agents involved in his case. The judge said that while those appeared to be the least threatening of the social media posts, they were the most realistic given the agents are known to Nelson and work in the defendant’s vicinity.

Nelson is awaiting a trial that is set for Dec. 10, according to court records. He is facing charges for nonviolent offenses, including obstructing an official proceeding, trespassing on restricted federal property, and disorderly conduct.

2024-08-07 20:27:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3114252%2Fjan-6-defendant-rearrested-alleged-threats-justice-barrett-garland%2F?w=600&h=450, A man facing charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was detained this week over allegations that he made threatening posts on social media about Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and other officials. A judge granted Department of Justice prosecutors’ request to rearrest Bradley Nelson, who was out on bail from,

A man facing charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was detained this week over allegations that he made threatening posts on social media about Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and other officials.

A judge granted Department of Justice prosecutors’ request to rearrest Bradley Nelson, who was out on bail from his first arrest in March 2023 in connection with the Capitol breach, according to a court order.

Prosecutors said Nelson posted an image of Barrett alongside a vicious comment in June 2024.

“I pray to God with all my [expletive] heart that somebody cuts your [expletive] throat from ear to ear you worthless piece of [expletive],” Nelson wrote, according to prosecutors.

Nelson allegedly made the post one hour after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Fischer v. United States, a ruling that could be favorable for Nelson because it involves one of the Jan. 6 charges he is facing. Barrett sided with three liberal justices in a dissenting opinion.

Nelson posted an image in July 2024 of Garland with crosshairs drawn on his head and an image in February 2024 of New York Attorney General Letitia James with crosshairs on her head, prosecutors said.

Nelson allegedly commented on the image of James that he would “give every [expletive] thing I have to watch that [expletive]’s head explode, or at least the back of her head blowout.”

In June, Nelson also posted videos where he made excessively “combative and confrontational” remarks about two FBI agents involved in his Jan. 6 case, including saying he wants to get into “the MMA ring with you two pieces of [expletive],” according to prosecutors.

Nelson is due to appear at some point for a revocation hearing where his detention will be examined further.

“While that date has not been set, the Court finds sufficient basis for detention for that (hopefully brief) period due to Nelson’s escalating rhetoric,” the judge wrote.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The judge expressed the most concern about Nelson’s alleged comments directed toward the FBI agents involved in his case. The judge said that while those appeared to be the least threatening of the social media posts, they were the most realistic given the agents are known to Nelson and work in the defendant’s vicinity.

Nelson is awaiting a trial that is set for Dec. 10, according to court records. He is facing charges for nonviolent offenses, including obstructing an official proceeding, trespassing on restricted federal property, and disorderly conduct.

, A man facing charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was detained this week over allegations that he made threatening posts on social media about Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and other officials. A judge granted Department of Justice prosecutors’ request to rearrest Bradley Nelson, who was out on bail from his first arrest in March 2023 in connection with the Capitol breach, according to a court order. Prosecutors said Nelson posted an image of Barrett alongside a vicious comment in June 2024. “I pray to God with all my [expletive] heart that somebody cuts your [expletive] throat from ear to ear you worthless piece of [expletive],” Nelson wrote, according to prosecutors. Nelson allegedly made the post one hour after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Fischer v. United States, a ruling that could be favorable for Nelson because it involves one of the Jan. 6 charges he is facing. Barrett sided with three liberal justices in a dissenting opinion. Nelson posted an image in July 2024 of Garland with crosshairs drawn on his head and an image in February 2024 of New York Attorney General Letitia James with crosshairs on her head, prosecutors said. Nelson allegedly commented on the image of James that he would “give every [expletive] thing I have to watch that [expletive]’s head explode, or at least the back of her head blowout.” In June, Nelson also posted videos where he made excessively “combative and confrontational” remarks about two FBI agents involved in his Jan. 6 case, including saying he wants to get into “the MMA ring with you two pieces of [expletive],” according to prosecutors. Nelson is due to appear at some point for a revocation hearing where his detention will be examined further. “While that date has not been set, the Court finds sufficient basis for detention for that (hopefully brief) period due to Nelson’s escalating rhetoric,” the judge wrote. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The judge expressed the most concern about Nelson’s alleged comments directed toward the FBI agents involved in his case. The judge said that while those appeared to be the least threatening of the social media posts, they were the most realistic given the agents are known to Nelson and work in the defendant’s vicinity. Nelson is awaiting a trial that is set for Dec. 10, according to court records. He is facing charges for nonviolent offenses, including obstructing an official proceeding, trespassing on restricted federal property, and disorderly conduct., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/AP22210059283603-1024×590.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,

Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe vowed on Friday to provide “high-level” information on any disciplinary action he takes against agency employees over the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

Rowe said, however, that he would not give “real-time updates” because of the internal nature of employee matters.

Rowe’s remarks came as part of the first press conference the Secret Service has held on the shooting on July 13 that left one dead, two seriously injured, and Trump with a minor injury.

The press conference marked an effort by Rowe to be transparent with the public after former Director Kimberly Cheatle faced widespread criticism over her refusal to answer certain questions on the security failures that led to the assassination attempt. Cheatle resigned less than two weeks after the incident.

Rowe said his agency was conducting an internal investigation called a “mission assurance review” and that he “will not rush to judgment nor ignore due process” when it comes to reprimanding employees over the shooting.

“If in fact there were policy violations, at that point now, it will go into a parallel path of a disciplinary type of investigation,” Rowe said. “Those are internal investigations that deal with employee matters so we’re not going to be able to provide real-time updates.”

Rowe added that he would “at a high level provide at least some type of statement that people are being held accountable.”

Rowe said that typically the Secret Service does not comment at all on open investigations but that the historic assassination attempt, the first on a president or former president in four decades, was an “extraordinary” circumstance. He indicated that he would provide more information in the coming weeks.

Authorities say Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, climbed onto a nearby rooftop and fired eight rounds with an AR-15 rifle into a crowd at a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Rowe shed new light on the communication gaps that occurred at the rally, saying the Secret Service countersniper who responded to the gunshots by killing Crooks had no awareness of an armed person on a roof until the shots were fired, in part because of technological failings.

Rowe explained that interoperability is a regular challenge and that the Secret Service and local law enforcement were communicating on various networks, including cellular and radio networks.

Radio warnings from local law enforcement about a gunman on the roof “did not make it over” to the Secret Service in time, Rowe said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

Rowe was adamant that the shooting was a Secret Service failure and not a local law enforcement failure. He also praised Secret Service agents for their everyday work.

“The Secret Service’s successes are largely unknown. You will only know of our failures,” Rowe said.

2024-08-02 22:45:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2F3109493%2Fassassination-attempt-secret-service-will-not-give-real-time-updates-disciplinary-action%2F?w=600&h=450, Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe vowed on Friday to provide “high-level” information on any disciplinary action he takes against agency employees over the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. Rowe said, however, that he would not give “real-time updates” because of the internal nature of employee matters. Rowe’s remarks came as part of,

Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe vowed on Friday to provide “high-level” information on any disciplinary action he takes against agency employees over the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

Rowe said, however, that he would not give “real-time updates” because of the internal nature of employee matters.

Rowe’s remarks came as part of the first press conference the Secret Service has held on the shooting on July 13 that left one dead, two seriously injured, and Trump with a minor injury.

The press conference marked an effort by Rowe to be transparent with the public after former Director Kimberly Cheatle faced widespread criticism over her refusal to answer certain questions on the security failures that led to the assassination attempt. Cheatle resigned less than two weeks after the incident.

Rowe said his agency was conducting an internal investigation called a “mission assurance review” and that he “will not rush to judgment nor ignore due process” when it comes to reprimanding employees over the shooting.

“If in fact there were policy violations, at that point now, it will go into a parallel path of a disciplinary type of investigation,” Rowe said. “Those are internal investigations that deal with employee matters so we’re not going to be able to provide real-time updates.”

Rowe added that he would “at a high level provide at least some type of statement that people are being held accountable.”

Rowe said that typically the Secret Service does not comment at all on open investigations but that the historic assassination attempt, the first on a president or former president in four decades, was an “extraordinary” circumstance. He indicated that he would provide more information in the coming weeks.

Authorities say Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, climbed onto a nearby rooftop and fired eight rounds with an AR-15 rifle into a crowd at a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Rowe shed new light on the communication gaps that occurred at the rally, saying the Secret Service countersniper who responded to the gunshots by killing Crooks had no awareness of an armed person on a roof until the shots were fired, in part because of technological failings.

Rowe explained that interoperability is a regular challenge and that the Secret Service and local law enforcement were communicating on various networks, including cellular and radio networks.

Radio warnings from local law enforcement about a gunman on the roof “did not make it over” to the Secret Service in time, Rowe said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

Rowe was adamant that the shooting was a Secret Service failure and not a local law enforcement failure. He also praised Secret Service agents for their everyday work.

“The Secret Service’s successes are largely unknown. You will only know of our failures,” Rowe said.

, Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe vowed on Friday to provide “high-level” information on any disciplinary action he takes against agency employees over the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. Rowe said, however, that he would not give “real-time updates” because of the internal nature of employee matters. Rowe’s remarks came as part of the first press conference the Secret Service has held on the shooting on July 13 that left one dead, two seriously injured, and Trump with a minor injury. The press conference marked an effort by Rowe to be transparent with the public after former Director Kimberly Cheatle faced widespread criticism over her refusal to answer certain questions on the security failures that led to the assassination attempt. Cheatle resigned less than two weeks after the incident. Rowe said his agency was conducting an internal investigation called a “mission assurance review” and that he “will not rush to judgment nor ignore due process” when it comes to reprimanding employees over the shooting. “If in fact there were policy violations, at that point now, it will go into a parallel path of a disciplinary type of investigation,” Rowe said. “Those are internal investigations that deal with employee matters so we’re not going to be able to provide real-time updates.” Rowe added that he would “at a high level provide at least some type of statement that people are being held accountable.” Rowe said that typically the Secret Service does not comment at all on open investigations but that the historic assassination attempt, the first on a president or former president in four decades, was an “extraordinary” circumstance. He indicated that he would provide more information in the coming weeks. Authorities say Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, climbed onto a nearby rooftop and fired eight rounds with an AR-15 rifle into a crowd at a Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Rowe shed new light on the communication gaps that occurred at the rally, saying the Secret Service countersniper who responded to the gunshots by killing Crooks had no awareness of an armed person on a roof until the shots were fired, in part because of technological failings. Rowe explained that interoperability is a regular challenge and that the Secret Service and local law enforcement were communicating on various networks, including cellular and radio networks. Radio warnings from local law enforcement about a gunman on the roof “did not make it over” to the Secret Service in time, Rowe said. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   Rowe was adamant that the shooting was a Secret Service failure and not a local law enforcement failure. He also praised Secret Service agents for their everyday work. “The Secret Service’s successes are largely unknown. You will only know of our failures,” Rowe said., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AP24212607856364.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,

Former President Donald Trump’s election interference case is set to resume as early as Friday in Washington, D.C., after sitting dormant for months while the Supreme Court mulled presidential immunity.

The case’s anticipated revival could pave the way for dramatic pre-trial court proceedings in the coming months, serving as the only remaining case out of Trump’s four criminal prosecutions to see significant activity ahead of the presidential election.

The Supreme Court issued its decision on presidential immunity on July 1, and the high court’s order, known as a “mandate,” will be turned over to presiding Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday.

Chutkan, an Obama appointee, will probably not hold any hearings immediately, but the judge will likely provide expectations about what will come next through a scheduling update on Friday or in the coming days, according to legal experts.

The Defend Democracy Project, a group comprising Trump legal critics, said in a statement that Chutkan’s next moves could lead to a “mini-trial,” which would involve a series of court hearings in which special counsel Jack Smith and Trump’s defense team closely examine and argue over actions in the former president’s indictment.

“Whatever Judge Chutkan does on Friday opens the door for a possible mini trial around Trump’s participation in the attack on our country on January 6, 2021,” the Defend Democrat Project said.

The Supreme Court ruled in its landmark decision on immunity that actions presidents perform as part of their official job duties are protected from criminal prosecution. The high court said certain actions in Smith’s indictment, such as Trump’s communications with his Department of Justice, are therefore off-limits from being used against Trump.

The Supreme Court did not spell out every action of a president that is immune from prosecution, however, and instead ordered the lower court to sort through Trump’s indictment to determine what items in it are no longer in alignment with the immunity decision.

The ruling was a massive blow to Smith, and it may force Smith in the coming months to excise key parts of his indictment and dramatically weaken his charges against Trump. It also almost certainly postponed any full trial until after the presidential election, especially given that any decisions reached during the pretrial phase would open an opportunity for Trump to pursue drawn-out appeals to the decisions.

But a silver lining for Smith and those hoping to see Trump stand trial is the prospect of forthcoming hearings that could shine a spotlight on Trump’s behavior in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

Trump at the time spread unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud and engaged in several unsuccessful legal battles as he attempted to overturn his election loss. In Smith’s view, Trump also allegedly made illegal attempts to change the election results and incited the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Smith has been “very motivated” and Chutkan has seemed inclined to move the case on a “rocket docket” to hold a full trial before the election. It is unfeasible to maintain that pace now, Turley said.

“Pre-trial motions already presented a considerable challenge,” Turley told the Washington Examiner. “[Chutkan] will now have to review the charges and evidence under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court. The problem with pulling out the stops for a pre-election trial is that Judge Chutkan created little record on these issues.”

The potential mini-trial that some, such as the Defend Democracy Project, are anticipating would not produce a verdict, but it would allow for witnesses and a review of evidence, similar to what is presented during a full trial.

“Make no mistake: This isn’t the full trial Americans deserve,” the Defend Democracy Project said. “A mini trial, however, could still provide extremely helpful information for the public — and outline Trump’s alleged crimes to the American people.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Trump’s other three criminal cases will stay largely inactive ahead of the election, meaning Smith’s case in Washington, D.C., is currently Trump’s only major legal hurdle before November.

Trump is still set to face sentencing in New York in September for his hush money conviction, but the trial phase is over and Trump is raising several challenges to the verdict. In Florida, the classified documents case was dismissed and Smith is now working on filing an appeal, which in itself can be a monthslong process. Finally, in Fulton, County, Georgia, the next movement in that case is not scheduled until December, when the state’s appellate court hears arguments over whether District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified.

2024-08-02 08:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3108115%2Ftrump-jan-6-case-resume-presidential-immunity-ruling%2F?w=600&h=450, Former President Donald Trump’s election interference case is set to resume as early as Friday in Washington, D.C., after sitting dormant for months while the Supreme Court mulled presidential immunity. The case’s anticipated revival could pave the way for dramatic pre-trial court proceedings in the coming months, serving as the only remaining case out of,

Former President Donald Trump’s election interference case is set to resume as early as Friday in Washington, D.C., after sitting dormant for months while the Supreme Court mulled presidential immunity.

The case’s anticipated revival could pave the way for dramatic pre-trial court proceedings in the coming months, serving as the only remaining case out of Trump’s four criminal prosecutions to see significant activity ahead of the presidential election.

The Supreme Court issued its decision on presidential immunity on July 1, and the high court’s order, known as a “mandate,” will be turned over to presiding Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday.

Chutkan, an Obama appointee, will probably not hold any hearings immediately, but the judge will likely provide expectations about what will come next through a scheduling update on Friday or in the coming days, according to legal experts.

The Defend Democracy Project, a group comprising Trump legal critics, said in a statement that Chutkan’s next moves could lead to a “mini-trial,” which would involve a series of court hearings in which special counsel Jack Smith and Trump’s defense team closely examine and argue over actions in the former president’s indictment.

“Whatever Judge Chutkan does on Friday opens the door for a possible mini trial around Trump’s participation in the attack on our country on January 6, 2021,” the Defend Democrat Project said.

The Supreme Court ruled in its landmark decision on immunity that actions presidents perform as part of their official job duties are protected from criminal prosecution. The high court said certain actions in Smith’s indictment, such as Trump’s communications with his Department of Justice, are therefore off-limits from being used against Trump.

The Supreme Court did not spell out every action of a president that is immune from prosecution, however, and instead ordered the lower court to sort through Trump’s indictment to determine what items in it are no longer in alignment with the immunity decision.

The ruling was a massive blow to Smith, and it may force Smith in the coming months to excise key parts of his indictment and dramatically weaken his charges against Trump. It also almost certainly postponed any full trial until after the presidential election, especially given that any decisions reached during the pretrial phase would open an opportunity for Trump to pursue drawn-out appeals to the decisions.

But a silver lining for Smith and those hoping to see Trump stand trial is the prospect of forthcoming hearings that could shine a spotlight on Trump’s behavior in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

Trump at the time spread unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud and engaged in several unsuccessful legal battles as he attempted to overturn his election loss. In Smith’s view, Trump also allegedly made illegal attempts to change the election results and incited the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Smith has been “very motivated” and Chutkan has seemed inclined to move the case on a “rocket docket” to hold a full trial before the election. It is unfeasible to maintain that pace now, Turley said.

“Pre-trial motions already presented a considerable challenge,” Turley told the Washington Examiner. “[Chutkan] will now have to review the charges and evidence under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court. The problem with pulling out the stops for a pre-election trial is that Judge Chutkan created little record on these issues.”

The potential mini-trial that some, such as the Defend Democracy Project, are anticipating would not produce a verdict, but it would allow for witnesses and a review of evidence, similar to what is presented during a full trial.

“Make no mistake: This isn’t the full trial Americans deserve,” the Defend Democracy Project said. “A mini trial, however, could still provide extremely helpful information for the public — and outline Trump’s alleged crimes to the American people.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Trump’s other three criminal cases will stay largely inactive ahead of the election, meaning Smith’s case in Washington, D.C., is currently Trump’s only major legal hurdle before November.

Trump is still set to face sentencing in New York in September for his hush money conviction, but the trial phase is over and Trump is raising several challenges to the verdict. In Florida, the classified documents case was dismissed and Smith is now working on filing an appeal, which in itself can be a monthslong process. Finally, in Fulton, County, Georgia, the next movement in that case is not scheduled until December, when the state’s appellate court hears arguments over whether District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified.

, Former President Donald Trump’s election interference case is set to resume as early as Friday in Washington, D.C., after sitting dormant for months while the Supreme Court mulled presidential immunity. The case’s anticipated revival could pave the way for dramatic pre-trial court proceedings in the coming months, serving as the only remaining case out of Trump’s four criminal prosecutions to see significant activity ahead of the presidential election. The Supreme Court issued its decision on presidential immunity on July 1, and the high court’s order, known as a “mandate,” will be turned over to presiding Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday. Chutkan, an Obama appointee, will probably not hold any hearings immediately, but the judge will likely provide expectations about what will come next through a scheduling update on Friday or in the coming days, according to legal experts. The Defend Democracy Project, a group comprising Trump legal critics, said in a statement that Chutkan’s next moves could lead to a “mini-trial,” which would involve a series of court hearings in which special counsel Jack Smith and Trump’s defense team closely examine and argue over actions in the former president’s indictment. “Whatever Judge Chutkan does on Friday opens the door for a possible mini trial around Trump’s participation in the attack on our country on January 6, 2021,” the Defend Democrat Project said. The Supreme Court ruled in its landmark decision on immunity that actions presidents perform as part of their official job duties are protected from criminal prosecution. The high court said certain actions in Smith’s indictment, such as Trump’s communications with his Department of Justice, are therefore off-limits from being used against Trump. The Supreme Court did not spell out every action of a president that is immune from prosecution, however, and instead ordered the lower court to sort through Trump’s indictment to determine what items in it are no longer in alignment with the immunity decision. The ruling was a massive blow to Smith, and it may force Smith in the coming months to excise key parts of his indictment and dramatically weaken his charges against Trump. It also almost certainly postponed any full trial until after the presidential election, especially given that any decisions reached during the pretrial phase would open an opportunity for Trump to pursue drawn-out appeals to the decisions. But a silver lining for Smith and those hoping to see Trump stand trial is the prospect of forthcoming hearings that could shine a spotlight on Trump’s behavior in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Trump at the time spread unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud and engaged in several unsuccessful legal battles as he attempted to overturn his election loss. In Smith’s view, Trump also allegedly made illegal attempts to change the election results and incited the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Smith has been “very motivated” and Chutkan has seemed inclined to move the case on a “rocket docket” to hold a full trial before the election. It is unfeasible to maintain that pace now, Turley said. “Pre-trial motions already presented a considerable challenge,” Turley told the Washington Examiner. “[Chutkan] will now have to review the charges and evidence under the standard set forth by the Supreme Court. The problem with pulling out the stops for a pre-election trial is that Judge Chutkan created little record on these issues.” The potential mini-trial that some, such as the Defend Democracy Project, are anticipating would not produce a verdict, but it would allow for witnesses and a review of evidence, similar to what is presented during a full trial. “Make no mistake: This isn’t the full trial Americans deserve,” the Defend Democracy Project said. “A mini trial, however, could still provide extremely helpful information for the public — and outline Trump’s alleged crimes to the American people.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Trump’s other three criminal cases will stay largely inactive ahead of the election, meaning Smith’s case in Washington, D.C., is currently Trump’s only major legal hurdle before November. Trump is still set to face sentencing in New York in September for his hush money conviction, but the trial phase is over and Trump is raising several challenges to the verdict. In Florida, the classified documents case was dismissed and Smith is now working on filing an appeal, which in itself can be a monthslong process. Finally, in Fulton, County, Georgia, the next movement in that case is not scheduled until December, when the state’s appellate court hears arguments over whether District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MixCollage-27-May-2024-09-14-PM-2889.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,

The House Judiciary Committee launched an investigation Thursday into the daughter of the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s case in New York, citing her marketing work for prominent Democrats — including Trump’s 2024 opponent.

Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Loren Merchan in a letter to provide numerous documents and communications related to her work for Authentic Campaigns, a top Democratic marketing firm that has engaged in lucrative business with Trump’s top political rivals.

“Experts have raised substantial concerns with Judge [Juan] Merchan, your father, refusing to recuse himself from President Trump’s case despite your work on behalf of President Trump’s political adversaries and the financial benefit that your firm, Authentic Campaigns Inc., could receive from the prosecution and conviction,” Jordan wrote.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

The chairman asked Loren Merchan for contracts or invoices her firm had for marketing work it performed for the campaigns of President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, and the Democratic National Committee.

This story is developing.

2024-08-01 21:17:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fhouse%2F3108164%2Fhouse-gop-demands-judge-merchans-daughter-provide-records-work-kamala-harris%2F?w=600&h=450, The House Judiciary Committee launched an investigation Thursday into the daughter of the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s case in New York, citing her marketing work for prominent Democrats — including Trump’s 2024 opponent. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Loren Merchan in a letter to provide numerous documents and communications related to,

The House Judiciary Committee launched an investigation Thursday into the daughter of the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s case in New York, citing her marketing work for prominent Democrats — including Trump’s 2024 opponent.

Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Loren Merchan in a letter to provide numerous documents and communications related to her work for Authentic Campaigns, a top Democratic marketing firm that has engaged in lucrative business with Trump’s top political rivals.

“Experts have raised substantial concerns with Judge [Juan] Merchan, your father, refusing to recuse himself from President Trump’s case despite your work on behalf of President Trump’s political adversaries and the financial benefit that your firm, Authentic Campaigns Inc., could receive from the prosecution and conviction,” Jordan wrote.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

The chairman asked Loren Merchan for contracts or invoices her firm had for marketing work it performed for the campaigns of President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, and the Democratic National Committee.

This story is developing.

, The House Judiciary Committee launched an investigation Thursday into the daughter of the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s case in New York, citing her marketing work for prominent Democrats — including Trump’s 2024 opponent. Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Loren Merchan in a letter to provide numerous documents and communications related to her work for Authentic Campaigns, a top Democratic marketing firm that has engaged in lucrative business with Trump’s top political rivals. “Experts have raised substantial concerns with Judge [Juan] Merchan, your father, refusing to recuse himself from President Trump’s case despite your work on behalf of President Trump’s political adversaries and the financial benefit that your firm, Authentic Campaigns Inc., could receive from the prosecution and conviction,” Jordan wrote. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   The chairman asked Loren Merchan for contracts or invoices her firm had for marketing work it performed for the campaigns of President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, and the Democratic National Committee. This story is developing., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AP24103679430574-1-1024×591.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,

Senate Republicans urged Secret Service agents Tuesday to become whistleblowers and report their concerns about the agency to Congress after some had already anonymously come forward with information about the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) indicated that whistleblowers have been able to fill in key details since the shooting on July 13, which left one dead, two seriously injured, and Trump with a minor injury.  

“We need more whistleblowers,” Johnson said. “We need people inside the agencies who are willing to talk to us, tell the American people what’s really happening.”

Johnson’s remarks came during a press conference the lawmakers held right after a Senate hearing on the shooting, where acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe and FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate both testified.

Blackburn applauded whistleblowers who had already come forward, pointing to a report in RealClearPolitics of an internal email allegedly written by a Secret Service whistleblower decrying the bureau’s perceived culture of “CYA,” an acronym for “cover your a**.”

At the hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) confronted Rowe about a whistleblower report he received indicating that the Secret Service was offered the option to use drone technology at the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the shooting occurred, but an agent repeatedly rejected the offer.

“There was an offer to fly a drone on that day,” Rowe said. “We probably should have taken them up on it.”

Rowe was put in the hot seat after his predecessor, former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, resigned following her inability to answer numerous questions at a similar hearing about the stunning security failures that led to the assassination attempt. The gunman, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, was able to access a nearby rooftop and fire eight shots into the rally crowd.

Several senators at the hearing zeroed in on communication failures between the Secret Service and local law enforcement at the rally, but Cruz grilled Rowe on reports that the Secret Service had at times denied additional security requests from Trump since he left office.

Rowe said Trump was provided all the security assets his team requested for the rally, but he indicated that there were times in the past couple of years when this was not the case.

Cruz said he believed Secret Service leadership “made a political decision to deny these requests.”

“Secret Service agents are not political,” Rowe replied.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Later at the press conference, Cruz commended Rowe for doing “marginally better” than Cheatle but was still unconvinced that politics were not a factor in the Secret Service. Cruz reiterated the plea for more whistleblowers, saying they could shed light on the matter.

“I want to underscore the call that has come from multiple senators for whistleblowers,” Cruz said. “I believe the rational inference from the evidence we know now is it was political bias at the top, at the leadership of the Secret Service, that led to insufficient agents and insufficient resources being devoted to protecting President Trump.”

2024-07-30 22:48:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2F3105235%2Fgop-senators-call-for-more-secret-service-whistleblowers-after-assassination-attempt%2F?w=600&h=450, Senate Republicans urged Secret Service agents Tuesday to become whistleblowers and report their concerns about the agency to Congress after some had already anonymously come forward with information about the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) indicated that whistleblowers have been able to,

Senate Republicans urged Secret Service agents Tuesday to become whistleblowers and report their concerns about the agency to Congress after some had already anonymously come forward with information about the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump.

Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) indicated that whistleblowers have been able to fill in key details since the shooting on July 13, which left one dead, two seriously injured, and Trump with a minor injury.  

“We need more whistleblowers,” Johnson said. “We need people inside the agencies who are willing to talk to us, tell the American people what’s really happening.”

Johnson’s remarks came during a press conference the lawmakers held right after a Senate hearing on the shooting, where acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe and FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate both testified.

Blackburn applauded whistleblowers who had already come forward, pointing to a report in RealClearPolitics of an internal email allegedly written by a Secret Service whistleblower decrying the bureau’s perceived culture of “CYA,” an acronym for “cover your a**.”

At the hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) confronted Rowe about a whistleblower report he received indicating that the Secret Service was offered the option to use drone technology at the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the shooting occurred, but an agent repeatedly rejected the offer.

“There was an offer to fly a drone on that day,” Rowe said. “We probably should have taken them up on it.”

Rowe was put in the hot seat after his predecessor, former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, resigned following her inability to answer numerous questions at a similar hearing about the stunning security failures that led to the assassination attempt. The gunman, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, was able to access a nearby rooftop and fire eight shots into the rally crowd.

Several senators at the hearing zeroed in on communication failures between the Secret Service and local law enforcement at the rally, but Cruz grilled Rowe on reports that the Secret Service had at times denied additional security requests from Trump since he left office.

Rowe said Trump was provided all the security assets his team requested for the rally, but he indicated that there were times in the past couple of years when this was not the case.

Cruz said he believed Secret Service leadership “made a political decision to deny these requests.”

“Secret Service agents are not political,” Rowe replied.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Later at the press conference, Cruz commended Rowe for doing “marginally better” than Cheatle but was still unconvinced that politics were not a factor in the Secret Service. Cruz reiterated the plea for more whistleblowers, saying they could shed light on the matter.

“I want to underscore the call that has come from multiple senators for whistleblowers,” Cruz said. “I believe the rational inference from the evidence we know now is it was political bias at the top, at the leadership of the Secret Service, that led to insufficient agents and insufficient resources being devoted to protecting President Trump.”

, Senate Republicans urged Secret Service agents Tuesday to become whistleblowers and report their concerns about the agency to Congress after some had already anonymously come forward with information about the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) indicated that whistleblowers have been able to fill in key details since the shooting on July 13, which left one dead, two seriously injured, and Trump with a minor injury.   “We need more whistleblowers,” Johnson said. “We need people inside the agencies who are willing to talk to us, tell the American people what’s really happening.” Johnson’s remarks came during a press conference the lawmakers held right after a Senate hearing on the shooting, where acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe and FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate both testified. Blackburn applauded whistleblowers who had already come forward, pointing to a report in RealClearPolitics of an internal email allegedly written by a Secret Service whistleblower decrying the bureau’s perceived culture of “CYA,” an acronym for “cover your a**.” At the hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) confronted Rowe about a whistleblower report he received indicating that the Secret Service was offered the option to use drone technology at the Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the shooting occurred, but an agent repeatedly rejected the offer. “There was an offer to fly a drone on that day,” Rowe said. “We probably should have taken them up on it.” Rowe was put in the hot seat after his predecessor, former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, resigned following her inability to answer numerous questions at a similar hearing about the stunning security failures that led to the assassination attempt. The gunman, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, was able to access a nearby rooftop and fire eight shots into the rally crowd. Several senators at the hearing zeroed in on communication failures between the Secret Service and local law enforcement at the rally, but Cruz grilled Rowe on reports that the Secret Service had at times denied additional security requests from Trump since he left office. Rowe said Trump was provided all the security assets his team requested for the rally, but he indicated that there were times in the past couple of years when this was not the case. Cruz said he believed Secret Service leadership “made a political decision to deny these requests.” “Secret Service agents are not political,” Rowe replied. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Later at the press conference, Cruz commended Rowe for doing “marginally better” than Cheatle but was still unconvinced that politics were not a factor in the Secret Service. Cruz reiterated the plea for more whistleblowers, saying they could shed light on the matter. “I want to underscore the call that has come from multiple senators for whistleblowers,” Cruz said. “I believe the rational inference from the evidence we know now is it was political bias at the top, at the leadership of the Secret Service, that led to insufficient agents and insufficient resources being devoted to protecting President Trump.”, , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/secret-service-hawley_334-1024×683.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,

Mark Meadows asked the Supreme Court to consider his bid to move his election interference charges in Georgia to federal court, citing the high court’s recent landmark decision on presidential immunity.

Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s onetime chief of staff, argued in a petition, made public over the weekend, that federal court was the appropriate venue for the two election charges brought against him by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

“It is hard to imagine a case in which the need for a federal forum is more pressing than one that requires resolving novel questions about the duties and powers of one of the most important federal offices in the Nation,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote.

Meadows’s petition to the Supreme Court comes after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Meadows’s request in December.

The former chief of staff’s argument to the appellate court was twofold. Meadows claimed that he should have his case removed to federal court, but this requires a federal defense. Meadows therefore said that his federal defense would be that the actions cited in Willis’s indictment were protected from prosecution because they were part of Meadows’s official duties as White House chief of staff.

Meadows’s attorneys said the appellate court erred in ruling that former officials such as Meadows are not entitled to federal removal the same way current officials are. Additionally, the appellate court found Meadows’s actions cited in Willis’s indictment were not part of his official job duties.

“That decision defies statutory text, context, history, and common sense,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote in their Supreme Court petition.

The attorneys were able to heavily reference the Supreme Court’s decision that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for certain actions they perform in their official capacity.

Meadows’s use of the decision, which the Supreme Court made in response to Trump’s election case in Washington, D.C., is the latest instance of the ruling’s reverberating effects. Trump has already wielded it in Florida and New York, and some of Trump’s co-defendants in Georgia, such as Meadows, were expected to make use of it, as well.

“Just as immunity protection for former officers is critical to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from enthusiastic service, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to litigate that defense,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote.

Meadows’s petition comes more than seven months after the 11th Circuit denied Meadows’s request, an unusually lengthy duration for a defendant seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention in a case.

Meadows’s attorneys had asked in May for an extension to file their request, in part because Trump’s immunity case was still pending at the time. Justice Clarence Thomas, who is assigned to oversee matters of the 11th Circuit, granted Meadows two extensions.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

While the Supreme Court considers whether to take up Meadows’s federal removal argument, the case is halted at the district level while an appellate court considers the unrelated argument that Willis should be disqualified as prosecutor over a conflict of interest.

The Georgia Court of Appeals will hear arguments on the disqualification matter in December.

2024-07-29 23:02:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2F3103464%2Fmark-meadows-invokes-presidential-immunity-to-argue-supreme-court-should-intervene-in-georgia-case%2F?w=600&h=450, Mark Meadows asked the Supreme Court to consider his bid to move his election interference charges in Georgia to federal court, citing the high court’s recent landmark decision on presidential immunity. Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s onetime chief of staff, argued in a petition, made public over the weekend, that federal court was the appropriate venue for the two election,

Mark Meadows asked the Supreme Court to consider his bid to move his election interference charges in Georgia to federal court, citing the high court’s recent landmark decision on presidential immunity.

Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s onetime chief of staff, argued in a petition, made public over the weekend, that federal court was the appropriate venue for the two election charges brought against him by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

“It is hard to imagine a case in which the need for a federal forum is more pressing than one that requires resolving novel questions about the duties and powers of one of the most important federal offices in the Nation,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote.

Meadows’s petition to the Supreme Court comes after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Meadows’s request in December.

The former chief of staff’s argument to the appellate court was twofold. Meadows claimed that he should have his case removed to federal court, but this requires a federal defense. Meadows therefore said that his federal defense would be that the actions cited in Willis’s indictment were protected from prosecution because they were part of Meadows’s official duties as White House chief of staff.

Meadows’s attorneys said the appellate court erred in ruling that former officials such as Meadows are not entitled to federal removal the same way current officials are. Additionally, the appellate court found Meadows’s actions cited in Willis’s indictment were not part of his official job duties.

“That decision defies statutory text, context, history, and common sense,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote in their Supreme Court petition.

The attorneys were able to heavily reference the Supreme Court’s decision that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for certain actions they perform in their official capacity.

Meadows’s use of the decision, which the Supreme Court made in response to Trump’s election case in Washington, D.C., is the latest instance of the ruling’s reverberating effects. Trump has already wielded it in Florida and New York, and some of Trump’s co-defendants in Georgia, such as Meadows, were expected to make use of it, as well.

“Just as immunity protection for former officers is critical to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from enthusiastic service, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to litigate that defense,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote.

Meadows’s petition comes more than seven months after the 11th Circuit denied Meadows’s request, an unusually lengthy duration for a defendant seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention in a case.

Meadows’s attorneys had asked in May for an extension to file their request, in part because Trump’s immunity case was still pending at the time. Justice Clarence Thomas, who is assigned to oversee matters of the 11th Circuit, granted Meadows two extensions.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

While the Supreme Court considers whether to take up Meadows’s federal removal argument, the case is halted at the district level while an appellate court considers the unrelated argument that Willis should be disqualified as prosecutor over a conflict of interest.

The Georgia Court of Appeals will hear arguments on the disqualification matter in December.

, Mark Meadows asked the Supreme Court to consider his bid to move his election interference charges in Georgia to federal court, citing the high court’s recent landmark decision on presidential immunity. Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s onetime chief of staff, argued in a petition, made public over the weekend, that federal court was the appropriate venue for the two election charges brought against him by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. “It is hard to imagine a case in which the need for a federal forum is more pressing than one that requires resolving novel questions about the duties and powers of one of the most important federal offices in the Nation,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote. Meadows’s petition to the Supreme Court comes after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Meadows’s request in December. The former chief of staff’s argument to the appellate court was twofold. Meadows claimed that he should have his case removed to federal court, but this requires a federal defense. Meadows therefore said that his federal defense would be that the actions cited in Willis’s indictment were protected from prosecution because they were part of Meadows’s official duties as White House chief of staff. FILE – Mark Meadows speaks with reporters at the White House, Oct. 21, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File) Meadows’s attorneys said the appellate court erred in ruling that former officials such as Meadows are not entitled to federal removal the same way current officials are. Additionally, the appellate court found Meadows’s actions cited in Willis’s indictment were not part of his official job duties. “That decision defies statutory text, context, history, and common sense,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote in their Supreme Court petition. The attorneys were able to heavily reference the Supreme Court’s decision that presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for certain actions they perform in their official capacity. Meadows’s use of the decision, which the Supreme Court made in response to Trump’s election case in Washington, D.C., is the latest instance of the ruling’s reverberating effects. Trump has already wielded it in Florida and New York, and some of Trump’s co-defendants in Georgia, such as Meadows, were expected to make use of it, as well. “Just as immunity protection for former officers is critical to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from enthusiastic service, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to litigate that defense,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote. Meadows’s petition comes more than seven months after the 11th Circuit denied Meadows’s request, an unusually lengthy duration for a defendant seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention in a case. Meadows’s attorneys had asked in May for an extension to file their request, in part because Trump’s immunity case was still pending at the time. Justice Clarence Thomas, who is assigned to oversee matters of the 11th Circuit, granted Meadows two extensions. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER While the Supreme Court considers whether to take up Meadows’s federal removal argument, the case is halted at the district level while an appellate court considers the unrelated argument that Willis should be disqualified as prosecutor over a conflict of interest. The Georgia Court of Appeals will hear arguments on the disqualification matter in December., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24116010103444.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,

Hunter Biden’s attorneys defended themselves in a court filing on Sunday after a judge in California accused them of making false statements and threatened them with sanctions.

Mark Geragos and Abbe Lowell, who are leading Biden’s defense in his tax case, said that “context matters” regarding their inaccurate claim that David Weiss did not bring charges against Biden until after Weiss was appointed special counsel.

“Defense counsel, perhaps inartfully, intended this use of the word ‘charges’ to refer to the current charges brought by indictment against Mr. Biden, not the lack of any charges at all,” Biden’s attorneys wrote. “Here, context matters.”

Judge Mark Scarsi last week ordered Geragos and Lowell to explain why they should not be sanctioned for making significant “misstatements” and displaying a “lack of candor” in a request the attorneys made that Biden’s indictment be dismissed on the grounds that Weiss was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.

Biden’s attorneys omitted from their request that Weiss also tried to charge Biden with tax violations in June 2023, before he became special counsel. The charges were part of a plea deal that fell apart that summer and led to Weiss becoming special counsel and bringing two indictments against Biden later that year.

“[Weiss] brought no charges until after he received the Special Counsel title,” the attorneys wrote in their initial request.

The point of their request was to argue that Biden’s nine tax charges should be tossed out because Weiss, as special counsel, was allegedly inappropriately appointed and improperly funded by Congress when he brought the charges.

“Defense counsel has never tried to mislead the Court about the fact that Mr. Weiss, as the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, brought charges by way of two now-dismissed Informations that were initially docketed in Delaware,” the attorneys wrote.

They said that, in their view, they were differentiating between charges brought through an information, which is a way to bring criminal charges without using a grand jury, and charges brought through an indictment, which requires a grand jury.

Biden’s attorneys resubmitted their request that the first son’s charges be dismissed, saying they replaced the word “charges” with “indictment” in certain instances to address Scarsi’s concerns.

The defense attorneys filed the dismissal request after Judge Aileen Cannon made the surprise decision this month to toss out former President Donald Trump’s classified documents charges in Florida on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed.

Biden’s attorneys said the new development warranted raising their argument about Weiss again, after they tried unsuccessfully to make the same argument earlier this year.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

They said that sanctions, which can be as mild as a written admonishment or as severe as a threat of disbarment, would also impede the attorneys’ ability to defend Biden, whose trial is set to begin on Sept. 9.

“The imposition of sanctions against a criminal defendant’s counsel this close to pre-trial and trial proceedings based on a single word would chill the vigorous defense of Mr. Biden and have the improper effect of dissuading defense counsel from raising appropriate issues,” the attorneys wrote.

2024-07-29 18:41:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3103017%2Ffacing-threat-sanctions-hunter-biden-lawyers-argue-never-tried-mislead%2F?w=600&h=450, Hunter Biden’s attorneys defended themselves in a court filing on Sunday after a judge in California accused them of making false statements and threatened them with sanctions. Mark Geragos and Abbe Lowell, who are leading Biden’s defense in his tax case, said that “context matters” regarding their inaccurate claim that David Weiss did not bring charges against Biden until,

Hunter Biden’s attorneys defended themselves in a court filing on Sunday after a judge in California accused them of making false statements and threatened them with sanctions.

Mark Geragos and Abbe Lowell, who are leading Biden’s defense in his tax case, said that “context matters” regarding their inaccurate claim that David Weiss did not bring charges against Biden until after Weiss was appointed special counsel.

“Defense counsel, perhaps inartfully, intended this use of the word ‘charges’ to refer to the current charges brought by indictment against Mr. Biden, not the lack of any charges at all,” Biden’s attorneys wrote. “Here, context matters.”

Judge Mark Scarsi last week ordered Geragos and Lowell to explain why they should not be sanctioned for making significant “misstatements” and displaying a “lack of candor” in a request the attorneys made that Biden’s indictment be dismissed on the grounds that Weiss was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.

Biden’s attorneys omitted from their request that Weiss also tried to charge Biden with tax violations in June 2023, before he became special counsel. The charges were part of a plea deal that fell apart that summer and led to Weiss becoming special counsel and bringing two indictments against Biden later that year.

“[Weiss] brought no charges until after he received the Special Counsel title,” the attorneys wrote in their initial request.

The point of their request was to argue that Biden’s nine tax charges should be tossed out because Weiss, as special counsel, was allegedly inappropriately appointed and improperly funded by Congress when he brought the charges.

“Defense counsel has never tried to mislead the Court about the fact that Mr. Weiss, as the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, brought charges by way of two now-dismissed Informations that were initially docketed in Delaware,” the attorneys wrote.

They said that, in their view, they were differentiating between charges brought through an information, which is a way to bring criminal charges without using a grand jury, and charges brought through an indictment, which requires a grand jury.

Biden’s attorneys resubmitted their request that the first son’s charges be dismissed, saying they replaced the word “charges” with “indictment” in certain instances to address Scarsi’s concerns.

The defense attorneys filed the dismissal request after Judge Aileen Cannon made the surprise decision this month to toss out former President Donald Trump’s classified documents charges in Florida on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed.

Biden’s attorneys said the new development warranted raising their argument about Weiss again, after they tried unsuccessfully to make the same argument earlier this year.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

They said that sanctions, which can be as mild as a written admonishment or as severe as a threat of disbarment, would also impede the attorneys’ ability to defend Biden, whose trial is set to begin on Sept. 9.

“The imposition of sanctions against a criminal defendant’s counsel this close to pre-trial and trial proceedings based on a single word would chill the vigorous defense of Mr. Biden and have the improper effect of dissuading defense counsel from raising appropriate issues,” the attorneys wrote.

, Hunter Biden’s attorneys defended themselves in a court filing on Sunday after a judge in California accused them of making false statements and threatened them with sanctions. Mark Geragos and Abbe Lowell, who are leading Biden’s defense in his tax case, said that “context matters” regarding their inaccurate claim that David Weiss did not bring charges against Biden until after Weiss was appointed special counsel. “Defense counsel, perhaps inartfully, intended this use of the word ‘charges’ to refer to the current charges brought by indictment against Mr. Biden, not the lack of any charges at all,” Biden’s attorneys wrote. “Here, context matters.” Judge Mark Scarsi last week ordered Geragos and Lowell to explain why they should not be sanctioned for making significant “misstatements” and displaying a “lack of candor” in a request the attorneys made that Biden’s indictment be dismissed on the grounds that Weiss was unlawfully appointed as special counsel. Biden’s attorneys omitted from their request that Weiss also tried to charge Biden with tax violations in June 2023, before he became special counsel. The charges were part of a plea deal that fell apart that summer and led to Weiss becoming special counsel and bringing two indictments against Biden later that year. “[Weiss] brought no charges until after he received the Special Counsel title,” the attorneys wrote in their initial request. The point of their request was to argue that Biden’s nine tax charges should be tossed out because Weiss, as special counsel, was allegedly inappropriately appointed and improperly funded by Congress when he brought the charges. “Defense counsel has never tried to mislead the Court about the fact that Mr. Weiss, as the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, brought charges by way of two now-dismissed Informations that were initially docketed in Delaware,” the attorneys wrote. They said that, in their view, they were differentiating between charges brought through an information, which is a way to bring criminal charges without using a grand jury, and charges brought through an indictment, which requires a grand jury. Biden’s attorneys resubmitted their request that the first son’s charges be dismissed, saying they replaced the word “charges” with “indictment” in certain instances to address Scarsi’s concerns. The defense attorneys filed the dismissal request after Judge Aileen Cannon made the surprise decision this month to toss out former President Donald Trump’s classified documents charges in Florida on the grounds that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. Biden’s attorneys said the new development warranted raising their argument about Weiss again, after they tried unsuccessfully to make the same argument earlier this year. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   They said that sanctions, which can be as mild as a written admonishment or as severe as a threat of disbarment, would also impede the attorneys’ ability to defend Biden, whose trial is set to begin on Sept. 9. “The imposition of sanctions against a criminal defendant’s counsel this close to pre-trial and trial proceedings based on a single word would chill the vigorous defense of Mr. Biden and have the improper effect of dissuading defense counsel from raising appropriate issues,” the attorneys wrote., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AP24145650700943-1.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,

FBI Director Christopher Wray revealed at a recent hearing that while the bureau had accessed some content from the digital devices of former President Donald Trump’s would-be assassin, it could not see everything.

One day later, a group of privacy activists huddled together to plot out ways to better protect digital information from the FBI and other entities.

“The FBI complains about going dark. When you look at the statistics on how often they intercept communications, this is the golden age of surveillance,” Greg Nojeim, a lawyer at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said during the virtual meeting on Thursday.

The meeting, hosted by Demand Progress, centered on encryption, which Nojeim described as “crucial to protecting information” in a world where everything, from personal messages and work communications to financial and health records, is online.

Wray had lamented at the hearing the obstacle presented by encrypted platforms, such as Signal, WhatsApp, or Proton Mail, which lock communications so that only the sender and recipient can see them.

Wray said the FBI had finally gained access to Thomas Matthew Crooks’s phone as the bureau continues searching for the motive of the 20-year-old who killed one, critically injured two, and injured Trump at a recent rally in Pennsylvania.

Wray said, however, that accessing the phone presented a “significant technical challenge” in itself “from an encryption perspective” and that encrypted messaging applications on Crooks’s phone were also a problem for the FBI.

The FBI may never be able to access some of Crooks’s content “no matter how good our legal process is,” Wray said.

“In terms of our ability to access it, we have been able to get into and exploit a number of electronic devices, digital devices but not all of them yet, and then within his various accounts, we’ve been able to get access to some of them, but some of them we’re still waiting on. Some of them we may never get access to because of the encryption issue that presents an increasingly vexing barrier for law enforcement,” Wray said.

FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate told lawmakers in a briefing one week before the hearing that the FBI had initiated a “legal process,” such as issuing subpoenas, with 30 companies and had been waiting on responses from 18 companies, including encrypted platforms, in reference to the Crooks investigation, according to a source familiar with the briefing.

Hajar Hammado, a senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, said in a statement the FBI has a record of attempting to break through encrypted platforms.

“Given the FBI’s long history of working to undermine end-to-end encryption, it’s very likely they will ask the next president to help them do it, and we can already see Director Wray laying that groundwork,” Hammado told the Washington Examiner.

Hammado stated that “people who care about defending digital security and privacy need to be vigilant and proactive in challenging the false narratives the FBI is once again trying to plant.”

Former Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who participated in the virtual privacy meeting, harkened back to the encryption controversy surrounding the shooting in San Bernadino, California, in 2015 that left 14 dead.

The FBI obtained a court order for Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the two shooters, and while Apple CEO Tim Cook fought the order in court, the FBI eventually found a third party to unlock the phone and dropped its legal pursuit against Apple.

The Washington Post reported that the third party was a small Australian hacking firm called Azimuth Security. In Crooks’s case, the outlet reported, the FBI broke into the gunman’s phone using software from Cellebrite, an Israeli firm federal investigators have increasingly turned to for cracking phone codes.

Noah Chauvin, a law professor at Widener University, said during the meeting with the privacy advocates, however, that he had observed “sustained efforts” from law enforcement to go directly to encryption platforms and pressure them to put “backdoors into their products that would allow the government to go in and review the messages that are being sent.”

Using third parties like Cellebrite is legal for the FBI to do, but federal statutes discourage law enforcement entities from pressuring companies that provide encryption services to directly help them access secure communications.

Goodlatte, who became a privacy lobbyist after leaving Congress, said he understood the FBI’s frustration with encryption but warned that efforts to access secured messages through backdoors, if successful, would present “security vulnerabilities” that could create hacking opportunities for foreign adversaries or international criminal organizations.

The group of privacy hawks discussed legislation they would urge Congress to pass, including an amendment introduced by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) that would prohibit any FBI funding that went toward undermining encryption.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

Davidson introduced the amendment as part of a congressional appropriations bill, which Republican leaders postponed addressing until after their August recess.

The annual summer break on Capitol Hill and the funding bill delays mean that while evergreen friction on encryption exists between privacy hawks and the government, it will likely be months or longer before any legislative fights on the issue come to a head.

2024-07-29 10:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3101322%2Ffbi-privacy-hawks-clash-trump-assassination-attempt%2F?w=600&h=450, FBI Director Christopher Wray revealed at a recent hearing that while the bureau had accessed some content from the digital devices of former President Donald Trump’s would-be assassin, it could not see everything. One day later, a group of privacy activists huddled together to plot out ways to better protect digital information from the FBI,

FBI Director Christopher Wray revealed at a recent hearing that while the bureau had accessed some content from the digital devices of former President Donald Trump’s would-be assassin, it could not see everything.

One day later, a group of privacy activists huddled together to plot out ways to better protect digital information from the FBI and other entities.

“The FBI complains about going dark. When you look at the statistics on how often they intercept communications, this is the golden age of surveillance,” Greg Nojeim, a lawyer at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said during the virtual meeting on Thursday.

The meeting, hosted by Demand Progress, centered on encryption, which Nojeim described as “crucial to protecting information” in a world where everything, from personal messages and work communications to financial and health records, is online.

Wray had lamented at the hearing the obstacle presented by encrypted platforms, such as Signal, WhatsApp, or Proton Mail, which lock communications so that only the sender and recipient can see them.

Wray said the FBI had finally gained access to Thomas Matthew Crooks’s phone as the bureau continues searching for the motive of the 20-year-old who killed one, critically injured two, and injured Trump at a recent rally in Pennsylvania.

Wray said, however, that accessing the phone presented a “significant technical challenge” in itself “from an encryption perspective” and that encrypted messaging applications on Crooks’s phone were also a problem for the FBI.

The FBI may never be able to access some of Crooks’s content “no matter how good our legal process is,” Wray said.

“In terms of our ability to access it, we have been able to get into and exploit a number of electronic devices, digital devices but not all of them yet, and then within his various accounts, we’ve been able to get access to some of them, but some of them we’re still waiting on. Some of them we may never get access to because of the encryption issue that presents an increasingly vexing barrier for law enforcement,” Wray said.

FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate told lawmakers in a briefing one week before the hearing that the FBI had initiated a “legal process,” such as issuing subpoenas, with 30 companies and had been waiting on responses from 18 companies, including encrypted platforms, in reference to the Crooks investigation, according to a source familiar with the briefing.

Hajar Hammado, a senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, said in a statement the FBI has a record of attempting to break through encrypted platforms.

“Given the FBI’s long history of working to undermine end-to-end encryption, it’s very likely they will ask the next president to help them do it, and we can already see Director Wray laying that groundwork,” Hammado told the Washington Examiner.

Hammado stated that “people who care about defending digital security and privacy need to be vigilant and proactive in challenging the false narratives the FBI is once again trying to plant.”

Former Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who participated in the virtual privacy meeting, harkened back to the encryption controversy surrounding the shooting in San Bernadino, California, in 2015 that left 14 dead.

The FBI obtained a court order for Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the two shooters, and while Apple CEO Tim Cook fought the order in court, the FBI eventually found a third party to unlock the phone and dropped its legal pursuit against Apple.

The Washington Post reported that the third party was a small Australian hacking firm called Azimuth Security. In Crooks’s case, the outlet reported, the FBI broke into the gunman’s phone using software from Cellebrite, an Israeli firm federal investigators have increasingly turned to for cracking phone codes.

Noah Chauvin, a law professor at Widener University, said during the meeting with the privacy advocates, however, that he had observed “sustained efforts” from law enforcement to go directly to encryption platforms and pressure them to put “backdoors into their products that would allow the government to go in and review the messages that are being sent.”

Using third parties like Cellebrite is legal for the FBI to do, but federal statutes discourage law enforcement entities from pressuring companies that provide encryption services to directly help them access secure communications.

Goodlatte, who became a privacy lobbyist after leaving Congress, said he understood the FBI’s frustration with encryption but warned that efforts to access secured messages through backdoors, if successful, would present “security vulnerabilities” that could create hacking opportunities for foreign adversaries or international criminal organizations.

The group of privacy hawks discussed legislation they would urge Congress to pass, including an amendment introduced by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) that would prohibit any FBI funding that went toward undermining encryption.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

Davidson introduced the amendment as part of a congressional appropriations bill, which Republican leaders postponed addressing until after their August recess.

The annual summer break on Capitol Hill and the funding bill delays mean that while evergreen friction on encryption exists between privacy hawks and the government, it will likely be months or longer before any legislative fights on the issue come to a head.

, FBI Director Christopher Wray revealed at a recent hearing that while the bureau had accessed some content from the digital devices of former President Donald Trump’s would-be assassin, it could not see everything. One day later, a group of privacy activists huddled together to plot out ways to better protect digital information from the FBI and other entities. “The FBI complains about going dark. When you look at the statistics on how often they intercept communications, this is the golden age of surveillance,” Greg Nojeim, a lawyer at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said during the virtual meeting on Thursday. The meeting, hosted by Demand Progress, centered on encryption, which Nojeim described as “crucial to protecting information” in a world where everything, from personal messages and work communications to financial and health records, is online. Wray had lamented at the hearing the obstacle presented by encrypted platforms, such as Signal, WhatsApp, or Proton Mail, which lock communications so that only the sender and recipient can see them. FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies before a House committee about the July 13 shooting at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Wednesday, July 24, 2024, on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) Wray said the FBI had finally gained access to Thomas Matthew Crooks’s phone as the bureau continues searching for the motive of the 20-year-old who killed one, critically injured two, and injured Trump at a recent rally in Pennsylvania. Wray said, however, that accessing the phone presented a “significant technical challenge” in itself “from an encryption perspective” and that encrypted messaging applications on Crooks’s phone were also a problem for the FBI. The FBI may never be able to access some of Crooks’s content “no matter how good our legal process is,” Wray said. “In terms of our ability to access it, we have been able to get into and exploit a number of electronic devices, digital devices but not all of them yet, and then within his various accounts, we’ve been able to get access to some of them, but some of them we’re still waiting on. Some of them we may never get access to because of the encryption issue that presents an increasingly vexing barrier for law enforcement,” Wray said. FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate told lawmakers in a briefing one week before the hearing that the FBI had initiated a “legal process,” such as issuing subpoenas, with 30 companies and had been waiting on responses from 18 companies, including encrypted platforms, in reference to the Crooks investigation, according to a source familiar with the briefing. Hajar Hammado, a senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, said in a statement the FBI has a record of attempting to break through encrypted platforms. “Given the FBI’s long history of working to undermine end-to-end encryption, it’s very likely they will ask the next president to help them do it, and we can already see Director Wray laying that groundwork,” Hammado told the Washington Examiner. Hammado stated that “people who care about defending digital security and privacy need to be vigilant and proactive in challenging the false narratives the FBI is once again trying to plant.” Former Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who participated in the virtual privacy meeting, harkened back to the encryption controversy surrounding the shooting in San Bernadino, California, in 2015 that left 14 dead. The FBI obtained a court order for Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the two shooters, and while Apple CEO Tim Cook fought the order in court, the FBI eventually found a third party to unlock the phone and dropped its legal pursuit against Apple. The Washington Post reported that the third party was a small Australian hacking firm called Azimuth Security. In Crooks’s case, the outlet reported, the FBI broke into the gunman’s phone using software from Cellebrite, an Israeli firm federal investigators have increasingly turned to for cracking phone codes. Noah Chauvin, a law professor at Widener University, said during the meeting with the privacy advocates, however, that he had observed “sustained efforts” from law enforcement to go directly to encryption platforms and pressure them to put “backdoors into their products that would allow the government to go in and review the messages that are being sent.” Using third parties like Cellebrite is legal for the FBI to do, but federal statutes discourage law enforcement entities from pressuring companies that provide encryption services to directly help them access secure communications. Goodlatte, who became a privacy lobbyist after leaving Congress, said he understood the FBI’s frustration with encryption but warned that efforts to access secured messages through backdoors, if successful, would present “security vulnerabilities” that could create hacking opportunities for foreign adversaries or international criminal organizations. The group of privacy hawks discussed legislation they would urge Congress to pass, including an amendment introduced by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) that would prohibit any FBI funding that went toward undermining encryption. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   Davidson introduced the amendment as part of a congressional appropriations bill, which Republican leaders postponed addressing until after their August recess. The annual summer break on Capitol Hill and the funding bill delays mean that while evergreen friction on encryption exists between privacy hawks and the government, it will likely be months or longer before any legislative fights on the issue come to a head., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/AP24206572023537.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,

Hunter Biden‘s defense attorneys are facing the prospect of sanctions after a judge in California accused them of lying in a court filing about when special counsel David Weiss brought charges against the first son.

Judge Mark Scarsi demanded in an order this week that Abbe Lowell and Mark Geragos, who are leading Biden’s defense team, respond by next Wednesday with an explanation for why they should not be sanctioned for making false statements.

“The misstatements in the current motion are not trivial,” Scarsi wrote.

The statements in question appeared in a request the pair made last week in which they argued that Biden’s nine tax charges should be tossed out on the basis that Weiss was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.

The attorneys first brought the request about Weiss’s appointment earlier this year, and Scarsi denied it. However, after a judge in Florida ruled special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and tossed out former President Donald Trump‘s classified documents case, Biden’s attorneys said the new development warranted raising their argument about Weiss again.

The attempt to have Biden’s case dismissed may now backfire, however.

Scarsi observed that Biden’s attorneys did not mention how Weiss initially brought charges against Biden in June 2023 when Weiss was still a U.S. attorney. After a plea deal failed that summer, Weiss became special counsel and brought an indictment against the first son in December.

Scarsi said that timeline was a “meaningful distinction” between Biden’s and Trump’s cases.

“But Mr. Biden’s motion does not engage with this distinction; instead, counsel avoids the issue by misrepresenting the history of the proceedings,” the judge wrote. “This Court has little tolerance for lack of candor from counsel.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Biden’s trial in the case is set to begin Sept. 9. He faces six misdemeanor and three felony charges, which include failure to file taxes and tax evasion. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

Geragos told the Washington Examiner the defense attorneys plan to respond to the order and that, in their view, there is no difference between the special counsel appointments in Biden’s case in California and Trump’s case in Florida.

2024-07-26 16:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fjustice%2F3100541%2Fhunter-biden-lawyers-threatened-with-sanctions-false-statements-tax-case%2F?w=600&h=450, Hunter Biden‘s defense attorneys are facing the prospect of sanctions after a judge in California accused them of lying in a court filing about when special counsel David Weiss brought charges against the first son. Judge Mark Scarsi demanded in an order this week that Abbe Lowell and Mark Geragos, who are leading Biden’s defense,

Hunter Biden‘s defense attorneys are facing the prospect of sanctions after a judge in California accused them of lying in a court filing about when special counsel David Weiss brought charges against the first son.

Judge Mark Scarsi demanded in an order this week that Abbe Lowell and Mark Geragos, who are leading Biden’s defense team, respond by next Wednesday with an explanation for why they should not be sanctioned for making false statements.

“The misstatements in the current motion are not trivial,” Scarsi wrote.

The statements in question appeared in a request the pair made last week in which they argued that Biden’s nine tax charges should be tossed out on the basis that Weiss was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.

The attorneys first brought the request about Weiss’s appointment earlier this year, and Scarsi denied it. However, after a judge in Florida ruled special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and tossed out former President Donald Trump‘s classified documents case, Biden’s attorneys said the new development warranted raising their argument about Weiss again.

The attempt to have Biden’s case dismissed may now backfire, however.

Scarsi observed that Biden’s attorneys did not mention how Weiss initially brought charges against Biden in June 2023 when Weiss was still a U.S. attorney. After a plea deal failed that summer, Weiss became special counsel and brought an indictment against the first son in December.

Scarsi said that timeline was a “meaningful distinction” between Biden’s and Trump’s cases.

“But Mr. Biden’s motion does not engage with this distinction; instead, counsel avoids the issue by misrepresenting the history of the proceedings,” the judge wrote. “This Court has little tolerance for lack of candor from counsel.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Biden’s trial in the case is set to begin Sept. 9. He faces six misdemeanor and three felony charges, which include failure to file taxes and tax evasion. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

Geragos told the Washington Examiner the defense attorneys plan to respond to the order and that, in their view, there is no difference between the special counsel appointments in Biden’s case in California and Trump’s case in Florida.

, Hunter Biden‘s defense attorneys are facing the prospect of sanctions after a judge in California accused them of lying in a court filing about when special counsel David Weiss brought charges against the first son. Judge Mark Scarsi demanded in an order this week that Abbe Lowell and Mark Geragos, who are leading Biden’s defense team, respond by next Wednesday with an explanation for why they should not be sanctioned for making false statements. “The misstatements in the current motion are not trivial,” Scarsi wrote. The statements in question appeared in a request the pair made last week in which they argued that Biden’s nine tax charges should be tossed out on the basis that Weiss was unlawfully appointed as special counsel. The attorneys first brought the request about Weiss’s appointment earlier this year, and Scarsi denied it. However, after a judge in Florida ruled special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and tossed out former President Donald Trump‘s classified documents case, Biden’s attorneys said the new development warranted raising their argument about Weiss again. The attempt to have Biden’s case dismissed may now backfire, however. Scarsi observed that Biden’s attorneys did not mention how Weiss initially brought charges against Biden in June 2023 when Weiss was still a U.S. attorney. After a plea deal failed that summer, Weiss became special counsel and brought an indictment against the first son in December. Scarsi said that timeline was a “meaningful distinction” between Biden’s and Trump’s cases. “But Mr. Biden’s motion does not engage with this distinction; instead, counsel avoids the issue by misrepresenting the history of the proceedings,” the judge wrote. “This Court has little tolerance for lack of candor from counsel.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Biden’s trial in the case is set to begin Sept. 9. He faces six misdemeanor and three felony charges, which include failure to file taxes and tax evasion. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Geragos told the Washington Examiner the defense attorneys plan to respond to the order and that, in their view, there is no difference between the special counsel appointments in Biden’s case in California and Trump’s case in Florida., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AP24163482569232-1.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Ashley Oliver,