DOJ reserves right to not cooperate with certain House GOP requests

The Justice Department is signaling that it has the right to not cooperate with Hill Republicans' requests to peek into their ongoing investigations, a top official wrote in a letter obtained by POLITICO.

“Consistent with longstanding policy and practice, any oversight requests must be weighed against the Department’s interests in protecting the integrity of its work,” Carlos Uriarte, DOJ's legislative affairs chief, wrote in the five-page letter. “Longstanding Department policy prevents us from confirming or denying the existence of pending investigations in response to congressional requests or providing non-public information about our investigations.”

The letter, addressed to Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), acknowledges the GOP's multiple requests for information during the last Congress but doesn't divulge any new information. Instead, Uriarte outlines how he hopes DOJ could have a “productive relationship” with Republicans in the new Congress, as Jordan had in previous letters accused the DOJ of “stonewalling” their requests, raised the possibility of a subpoena and said the committee could resort to “compulsory practices” to obtain the requested information and documents.

It’s an early marker of DOJ’s position as Republicans pledge to probe President Joe Biden’s administration over a laundry list of issues, including with a select subpanel that has a broad mandate to investigate the federal government. Conservatives have hinted they would use that panel to try to look into certain ongoing law enforcement investigations.

The Justice Department letter cites a 1982 directive from President Ronald Reagan, stressing that the administration would try to respond to congressional oversight requests and avoid invoking executive privilege, reserving it for use “only in the most compelling circumstances.” Uriarte, an assistant attorney general, said DOJ would respect the committee's “legitimate efforts” to seek information, “consistent with our obligation to protect Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”

DOJ also outlined guidance for potential hearings House Republicans might call, including which Justice Department staff might be able to testify. Citing a 2000 DOJ letter to Congress, Urirate wrote that DOJ would not be making line agents or attorneys involved in everyday casework available to testify and instead would direct inquiries to supervising officials.

“We are available to engage in staff-level meetings to determine which information requests incorporated into your recent letters reflect the Committee’s current priorities in light of prior Department responses and disclosures," Uriarte said.

A Jordan spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney contributed to to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/k7bh5lK
via IFTTT

Read More

Judge rules DeSantis' ouster of prosecutor was unconstitutional but upholds suspension

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A federal judge on Friday ruled that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis violated the Constitution when he suspended former Hillsborough County State Attorney Andrew Warren — but the judge said he didn’t have the authority to reinstate the twice-elected Democrat.

In a nearly 60-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle overwhelmingly sided with Warren, who was ousted by DeSantis in August after Warren pledged not to prosecute women for violating Florida’s recently enacted ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. DeSantis also said he suspended the prosecutor for stating he wouldn’t criminally charge anyone for providing gender-affirming care to transgender patients even though state law doesn’t address that issue.

Warren, who was elected state attorney in 2016, sued to overturn his suspension, arguing the move violated his First Amendment rights. DeSantis contended the suspension was warranted because Warren’s comments represented a broader commitment to not prosecute individuals under state law.

Hinkle rejected DeSantis’ argument.

“Florida Governor Ron DeSantis suspended elected State Attorney Andrew H. Warren, ostensibly on the ground that Mr. Warren had blanket policies not to prosecute certain kinds of cases,” read the order. “The allegation was false.”

Hinkle said Warren’s office had a policy of using “prosecutorial discretion” in all cases, including those involving abortion.

“Any reasonable investigation would have confirmed this,” Hinkle wrote.

The judge conceded, though, that he didn’t have the authority to reinstate Warren to his position.

DeSantis' office hailed the ruling was a victory, focusing primarily on Hinkle upholding Warren’s suspension.

“Today, Judge Hinkle upheld @GovRonDeSantis’ decision to suspend Andrew Warren from office for neglect of duty and incompetence,” DeSantis’ Communications Director Taryn Fenske said.

DeSantis replaced Warren with Susan Lopez, who previously served as a judge in the Tampa area.

Warren is expected to publicly discuss the ruling later Friday afternoon.

DeSantis began eyeing Warren after the governor in late 2021 asked his public safety czar, Larry Keefe, to see whether Florida had any “reform prosecutors,” a term generally associated with progressive prosecutors who pursue criminal justice reforms. When he ran for Hillsborough state attorney, Warren vowed to reduce recidivism, among other things.

“Mr. Keefe made some calls to acquaintances and quickly identified Mr. Warren as the Florida prosecutor who had taken the mantle of a reform prosecutor,” read Hinkle’s opinion.

In his ruling, Hinkle also highlighted testimony from Fenske centered on how the communications office handled the announcement that DeSantis was suspending Warren. The night before DeSantis held the Aug. 4 high-profile press conference to suspend Warren through executive order, former administration press secretary Christina Pushaw tweeted: “Get some rest tonight” and “[p]repare for the liberal media meltdown of the year.”

During trial, Fenske testified that Pushaw was admonished for the tweets, but Hinkle says he “does not credit” the testimony because Pushaw was tweeting about the suspension again the next day.

“Ms. Pushaw tweeted an equally partisan, unprofessional message about this the next night, after purportedly being admonished,” he wrote. “And in any event, any admonishment was about tone, not substance.”

As justification for the suspension, DeSantis’ legal team also brought up former GOP Gov. Rick Scott’s 2017 decision to reassign death penalty-eligible cases from Aramis Ayala, the former state attorney for Orange and Osceola counties, after she said she would never pursue the death penalty even in cases that “absolutely deserve the death penalty.”

In his ruling, Hinkle noted no one ever suggested removing Ayala from office, and that Warren never made similar statements.

“Quite the contrary,” Hinkle wrote. “[Warren] said repeatedly that discretion would be exercised at every state of the case.”

The issue now could go before the Florida Senate, which is responsible for removing from office officials who have been suspended by the governor.

The issue is currently on hold in the Senate until the legal proceedings are resolved, including any potential appeals.

Senate President Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples) sent a memo to her members Friday morning after the Hinkle ruling telling them the issue isn’t completed.

“As such, the matter of Mr. Warren’s reinstatement or removal from office by the Florida Senate appellate remedies have been exhausted,” she wrote.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/20/judge-said-desantis-violated-constitution-in-suspending-warren-00078789
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden: "I have no regrets" about how documents were handled

President Joe Biden said on Thursday that he had no regrets regarding his handling of documents, following the discovery of Obama-era classified materials in multiple private locations associated with Biden.

“I think you’re going to find there’s nothing there. I have no regrets,” Biden said, speaking in Aptos, Calif. “I’m following what the lawyers have told me they want me to do.”

Biden’s administration has been criticized for a perceived lack of transparency since the documents were discovered in the president’s home in Wilmington, Del., and at a think tank associated with him. His lawyers have turned over the documents to the National Archives and the Justice Department.

Biden also addressed the news media’s ongoing interest in the documents, as he answered a reporter’s question following a survey of a community affected by recent extreme weather in California.

“Quite frankly, what bugs me is that we have a serious problem here we’re talking about ... and the American people don’t quite understand why you don’t ask me questions about that,” Biden said, referring to his remarks on the storm and climate.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed former U.S. Attorney Robert Hur last week as special counsel to investigate the storage of the documents.

Members of both parties havedecried what they call a double standard on the media reaction and legal handling of the document discovery, as classified documents were also found in an August FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate.

The situations have notable differences: Biden has had fewer sensitive documents discovered than his predecessor, and unlike Trump, he appears to have cooperated with authorities in turning them over.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/4ehOj1x
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden gets first-hand look at costly damage to California’s Central Coast

President Joe Biden got a first-hand look Thursday at the costly damage in California from a series of powerful storms, where rain, floods and surging waves have caused billions in damage and caused at least 20 deaths.

Biden, accompanied by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other officials, flew by helicopter over the battered Central Coast, an area south of San Francisco that experienced some of the worst ravages of the storms that began in late December and only tapered off this week.

His itinerary included the beach town of Capitola, the setting for some of the most dramatic scenes in recent weeks as large waves tore apart a historic wooden wharf and smashed the community’s bright homes and businesses, depositing heavy debris on beaches. He was expected to speak at a state park in the area.

Local officials have just begun tallying the damage left by the storms: Preliminary estimates from Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Francisco and Sacramento counties put the figure at a combined $250 million. The statewide total will be well into the billions.

The figures eventually will affect how much money California communities receive through Biden’s recent disaster declaration, which he expanded Wednesday to cover 100 percent of costs for certain debris removal, emergency protective measures and other public assistance in affected areas.

Successive atmospheric rivers barreled over California starting shortly after Christmas, dumping a statewide average of 11.47” of rain from Dec. 26 to Jan. 17, with parts of the state receiving more than 30,” according to National Weather Service figures published Wednesday evening.

Creeks and rivers flooded, falling boulders destroyed roads and expansive pools formed in low-lying agricultural and suburban areas, damaging homes and vehicles. Winds that gusted above 100 miles per hour in some places downed trees and knocked out power for hundreds of thousands of people.

At least 20 people died, including a 1-year-old boy who was crushed when a tree fell on a mobile home in Sonoma County.

Those accompanying Biden also included Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Deanne Criswell, Sen. Alex Padilla, Rep. Anna Eshoo and other officials.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/YyxgZjk
via IFTTT

Read More

Florida nixes African American studies course, claims it ‘lacks educational value’

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida is barring high school students from taking a new advanced placement course on African American studies over concerns the lessons run “contrary” to state law and that it “significantly lacks educational value.”

In the state’s latest crackdown on how race is taught in schools, Florida education officials rejected the course from being implemented in classrooms as the College Board this year launches a pilot program for its development. The Florida Department of Education left the door open for possibly accepting the course eventually, but only if the content is tweaked to meet state guidelines.

“In the future, should College Board be willing to come back to the table with lawful, historically accurate content, FDOE will always be willing to reopen the discussion,” state education officials wrote in a Jan. 12 letter to the organization, first reported by National Review. The College Board conducts the SAT exams and advance placement programs.

Florida’s education agency, in its decision, doesn’t spell out exactly which law the course is violating, but the state in 2022 passed the “Stop WOKE” act that regulates lessons on race and gender in the classroom.

That legislation, FL HB 7 (22R), or the Individual Freedom Act, was passed by Florida’s Republican-led Legislature to expand state anti-discrimination laws and prohibit schools and companies from leveling guilt or blame to students and employees based on race or sex. It created new protections for students and workers, including that a person should not be instructed to “feel guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress” due to their race, color, sex or national origin.

Gov. Ron DeSantis, who championed the “Stop WOKE” act, has sought to reshape how children are taught in Florida. His Education Department previously rejected math textbooks over “impermissible” content, including teachings on critical race theory and DeSantis vigorously defended a law that bans educators from leading classroom discussions on sexual orientation or gender identity for kids in kindergarten through third grade. He also used his influence and party cash to support dozens of conservatives running for local school boards.

The move is part of a push by Florida conservatives to root out traces of “wokeness” in education, efforts that are on track to continue during the 2023 Legislative session, which begins in March. Florida, for example, is now is gearing up to scrutinize diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education.

The AP program is said to be the first African American studies course offered by the College Board and is meant to help high school students earn credits and advanced placement at colleges throughout the country. They have been developing the course for more than a decade to intersect literature, the arts and humanities, political science, geography, and science to “explore the vital contributions and experiences of African Americans.”

Florida’s decision to scrap the course statewide has been criticized by academics and Democrat lawmakers alike.

“This political extremism and its attack of Black History and Black people, is going to create an entire generation of Black children who won’t be able to see themselves reflected at all within their own education or in their own State,” state Sen. Shevrin Jones (D-Miami Gardens) wrote in a tweet.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/jLhMDBn
via IFTTT

Read More

Judge denies Navarro effort to dismiss contempt case for defying Jan. 6 committee

A federal judge on Thursday rejected a last-ditch effort by Peter Navarro, a former adviser to former President Donald Trump, to dismiss the contempt of Congress charges he faces for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee, keeping his late January trial on track to begin.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said Navarro had failed to prove that the former president wanted him to assert executive privilege over his potential testimony — a key claim that Navarro has long maintained justified his decision to simply blow off the select committee’s subpoena.

But Navarro provided no evidence of his claim, asserting only that Trump privately asked him to invoke executive privilege. Without at least a shred of proof that Trump made a “formal” assertion of executive privilege, Mehta said, he could not grant Navarro’s motion.

“Defendant has failed to come forward with any evidence to support the claimed assertion of privilege. And, because the claimed assertion of executive privilege is unproven, Defendant cannot avoid prosecution for contempt,” Mehta wrote in the 39-page ruling.

It’s a significant decision in an area with little precedent: what current and former presidents must do to assert executive privilege. Mehta acknowledged that there’s not much to guide how courts should determine when a proper assertion has been made. But he said limited court rulings on the subject suggest there must be at least some formal evidence it occurred.

Mehta noted that two other Trump aides whom the House sought to hold in contempt — Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino — produced letters from Trump ordering them to assert executive privilege on his behalf. The Justice Department declined to prosecute the men, and Mehta indicated that the absence of a similar letter from Trump to Navarro led to a reasonable conclusion that Trump had not asserted executive privilege over his testimony.

Mehta’s ruling means that Navarro’s trial on two charges of contempt of Congress is likely to commence later this month. He faces a maximum sentence of a year in prison on each charge — one for refusing to testify and the other for refusing to provide documents — if convicted.

The select committee had hoped to interview Navarro about his coordination with former Trump adviser Bannon and efforts to strategize with members of Congress seeking to challenge the 2020 election results on Jan. 6, 2021, during the counting of Electoral College ballots. The committee recommended that Navarro be held in contempt in April 2022, and the full House quickly followed suit. The Justice Department charged him in June.

Mehta’s ruling also gutted a series of defenses Navarro had hoped to raise at his trial, including that he had a “good-faith belief” that he was immune from the committee’s subpoena. Mehta also agreed to prohibit Navarro from arguing that the select committee’s subpoena was invalid because the panel didn’t have a full complement of 13 members or a ranking Republican member appointed by GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Although he declined to say whether the committee was operating improperly, Mehta noted that Supreme Court precedent required Navarro to first raise his rules complaint with Congress itself. Because he didn’t do that, he effectively waived that argument. Navarro had argued that raising his complaints to Congress would have been “futile” because the House would have simply rejected them. But Mehta said the rules were clear.

“Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has recognized a futility exception. … And, given the rationale of the rule, it is doubtful that higher courts would recognize one,” Mehta wrote.

The ruling essentially puts Navarro on a track similar to his close ally Bannon, who was tried and convicted of contempt of Congress in July. Bannon, like Navarro, had hoped to argue that he believed he was immune from testifying and that longstanding Justice Department precedents precluded Congress from subpoenaing advisers to former presidents. But in that case, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols relied on a decades-old appeals court ruling — United States v. Licavoli — to reject Bannon’s proposed defenses, ruling that prosecutors simply needed to show that Bannon deliberately refused to appear before Congress.

Mehta cited the case, as well, in tossing most of Navarro’s defenses.

“Defendant apparently believes the law applies differently to him,” he wrote of Navarro. “Because he is a former aide to the President of the United States, he contends, a more stringent state-of-mind standard applies, meaning that the government must be held to a higher burden of proof to convict him as opposed to the average person.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/d4EVlku
via IFTTT

Read More

Germany might be a bad ally, but it's America's bad ally

The German strategy — do nothing, blame the Nazis — is working.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/5xCUNJg
via IFTTT

Read More