‘Annoying’: Trump rivals hunker down for the indictment primary

If there was ever room for a Republican critical of Donald Trump in the 2024 GOP field, it all but disappeared on Thursday night.

Within a matter of hours following Trump’s indictment, his rivals and the nation’s most influential, once-Trump-wary conservative news outlet, Fox News, rallied to his defense. Even Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump’s most prominent Republican opponent, came to heel, pledging to refuse any extradition request ahead of what is expected to be Trump’s likely surrender next week.

By Friday morning, even Trump’s most ardent detractors acknowledged how little ground could be gained by siding against the party’s embattled former president.

“As bad as it was for Trump, it was worse for DeSantis and everyone else,” said Mike Madrid, the Republican strategist and co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project. “It rallies the base—there’s this rally around the flag effect for Trump. Second, probably most importantly, it just completely sucks the oxygen out of the room.”

In a less polarized political climate, an indictment from a grand jury targeting a primary frontrunner would create an opening for another candidate, let alone an indictment that remains under seal and its specifics unknown—never mind a general election.

So far that isn't happening, even in a GOP increasingly obsessed with electability following the loss of the White House in 2020 and disappointing midterm elections in 2022.

Across the field on Friday, GOP strategists said their candidates were hunkering down, wish-casting the news away.

“This news cycle will last days, not months,” said a senior adviser to a prospective candidate granted anonymity to discuss their camp’s political calculus, conceding the development does thrust Trump to the center of the primary.

“Annoying,” carped another 2024 hopeful’s strategist, granted anonymity for the same reason.. “We’ve already been talking about this for two weeks because Trump cried wolf,” the strategist said.

A third strategist working on a different potential GOP competitor’s campaign, also granted anonymity to discuss the dynamics of the race, acknowledged there is no way to beat Trump in the primary by cheering on the Manhattan prosecution. This person likened the indictment Thursday to news last year of the Supreme Court reaching a decision in the Dobbs case: “There was a big surprise when this came down, but you’ve been lying in wait, expecting it for a little bit.”

The GOP’s circling of the wagons is the surest sign yet that the coming months of the primary will orbit solely around the party’s standard-bearer. Every court proceeding, every new twist in the case will represent a litmus test other candidates in the field will either pass or fail.

It also underscores the narrowness of the path Trump’s opponents have to navigate: While the Never Trump movement has always consisted of an ineffectual sliver of the broader GOP—a sideshow to Trump’s main event— the movement hit rock bottom Thursday.

From former Vice President Mike Pence to Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, would-be Trump challengers castigated Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to indict Trump. As Pence had it: “outrageous.” “Beyond belief,” Youngkin tweeted. Even Ohio State Sen. Matt Dolan, the U.S. Senate candidate who had not previously bowed to kiss Trump’s ring, called Bragg’s actions “politically motivated.”

And former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who vowed earlier this week to never back Trump again and who appeared to be carving a lane for himself in the GOP primary as Trump’s critic in chief, has been conspicuously silent since news of the indictment broke.

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, who’s called for the party to move on from Trump in 2024 but said he would still support him if he’s the nominee, wouldn’t distance himself too much from the former president in an interview with POLITICO last week. “You have to hold everyone to the rule of law,” Sununu said, “but clearly there’s been some hesitation on whether they could really find anybody guilty on this.”

Former New Hampshire GOP Chair Fergus Cullen said, “Never blame a politician for acting like a politician, whether you’re Chris Sununu or Nikki Haley or even Mike Pence, you’re not trying to alienate the 75 percent of primary voters” who still support Trump or remain open to him as the nominee. “Maybe someone would have the decency to not defend [Trump], or point out that this is a behavior that gives them concerns, but that’s asking a lot.”

Though the Republican field is siding with Trump in the early days of the primary, it doesn't foreclose the possibility they will pivot when and if future criminal cases are brought against him.

In a previously booked interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Thursday evening, Pence left perhaps the most wiggle room of any possible challenger in his response about whether Trump, if convicted, should drop out of the race.

“It’s a long way to that decision,” Pence said, “I promise to answer that question if it approaches.”

Still, just one likely, longshot GOP candidate so far, Asa Hutchinson, has said Trump’s indictment should be disqualifying, evidence of a dearth of Republicans willing to endure the attendant slings and arrows of attacking Trump first. Especially not after the blowback DeSantis received by criticizing Trump on moral grounds, saying at a press conference last week he didn’t “know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star.”

The former Arkansas governor, who has yet to show signs of gaining any traction with the Republican electorate, said earlier this month Trump should drop out of the presidential race if indicted. Hutchinson seems undeterred that his stance on Trump is unpopular with the base: he has continued to prepare for an announcement next month. On Wednesday, he called a Trump donor to seek a meeting ahead of his planned campaign launch, according to a copy of the voicemail obtained by POLITICO.

“There is an opportunity for somebody who’s really good at this,” said Sarah Longwell, the Republican political strategist and publisher of the Never-Trump Bulwark. “We just don’t have that person.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/vK4tyJM
via IFTTT

Read More

Florida House passes parental rights bill restricting pronouns in schools

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — House Republicans in Florida passed a wide-ranging education bill Friday targeting how teachers and students can use their pronouns in schools, building on the state’s parental rights law that critics call “Don’t Say Gay.”

The proposal tightens restrictions on school lessons about sexual identity and gender orientation, which lawmakers say should happen at home. It also would require libraries pull books from shelves within five days if someone objects to the content in a change opponents contend amounts to censorship.

The measure is part of the push by Florida conservatives to uproot what they say is “indoctrination” in schools and is one of several bills taken up this session focusing on the LGBTQ community and transness.

With the 77-35 vote that saw House Democrats in opposition, the legislation is on the cusp of passing the Legislature but is awaiting a final committee hearing in the Senate. Two Republicans — State Rep. Demi Busatta Cabrera (R-Coral Gables) and Rep. Will Robinson (R-Bradenton) — crossed party lines and voted against the bill.

“For those who think our schools should be some sort of social justice experiment, I challenge you this: I don’t agree with any of it, but when 100 percent of our children are proficient in reading, and 100 percent of our children are proficient in math, then there is time for all of this silliness,” said state Rep. Randy Fine (R-Palm Bay). “You want to know what hurts children? It’s the fact that they can’t read, it’s the fact that they can’t do math.”

The bill, FL HB1069 (23R), would broaden the state’s prohibition on teaching about sexual identity and gender orientation from kindergarten through third grade to pre-K through eighth grade. This was a key piece in the Parental Rights in Education bill, known nationally as “Don’t Say Gay,” that was one of the more controversial policies passed by state lawmakers in 2022.

It also targets how school staff and students can use pronouns on K-12 campuses. Specifically, the legislation stipulates that school employees can’t ask students for their preferred pronouns and restricts school staff from sharing their pronouns with students if they “do not correspond” with their sex. Under the bill, it would be “false to ascribe” a person with a pronoun that “does not correspond to such person’s sex.”

As lawmakers voted on the bill, scores of LGBTQ advocates protested outside the House chamber, chanting in opposition of Gov. Ron DeSantis, who supports the parental rights expansions, and Republicans who passed it.

Most Florida Democrats have joined them in fighting the legislation, arguing the policies equate to sex discrimination and are disrespectful to LGBTQ students and families. They contend that the bill disregards the rights of parents who support their children being LGBTQ for the sake of others.

“In this body, our duty to our constituents is to make sure that every single constituent is seen and heard in our legislation,” said state Rep. Ashley Gantt (D-Miami). “And this bill does nothing but tell certain parts of our community in Florida that they don’t exist.”

Republican legislators, who hold a supermajority, maintain that expanding the parental rights law is necessary to ensure the state’s youngest students learn about adult topics like sexual orientation and gender identity from their parents instead of at school. Similar to last year when the parental rights bill was introduced, conservatives say the controversy over the proposal is a “manufactured narrative” and criticize advocacy groups and some school districts for politicizing the issue.

The legislation tackles an issue central to the parental rights polices lawmakers approved in 2022, which was inspired by a case in Leon County where parents claim that school officials helped their child transition to a different gender without informing them.

“I’m very concerned when I hear this bill being correlated with another bill, the Parental Rights in Education bill,” said state Rep. Fabián Basabe (R-Miami Beach). “And we’re still calling it the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill when I know we’ve all spoken … on how much work has been put into that bill to change any words that may be interpreted as targeting.”

HB 1069 also adds to legislation passed by Republicans last year to increase transparency about what books are available to students.

The bill aims to expand Florida law to require that books facing objections for being pornographic, harmful to minors, or describe or depict sexual activity must be pulled within five days and remain out of circulation for the duration of the challenge.

It also expands school board jurisdiction to classroom libraries. The bill would allow a parent who disagrees with a district's ruling on a book challenge to appeal the state education commissioner to appoint a special magistrate to hear the dispute.

This comes as DeSantis, along with other Florida conservatives, seek to remove books with graphic content from schools, taking aim at specific titles such as "Gender Queer: A Memoir" by Maia Kobabe, which depicts sex acts. Another measure in the bill stipulates that the Florida Department of Education must approve all materials for sex education classes, breaking from current policy of having local school boards pass them every year.

Democrats argue that the bill is too vague and could lead to parents challenging a large number of books that would then be kept off the shelves. They pointed to challenges to media that have played out across the state such as the Ruby Bridges movie being called out by a parent in Pinellas County, where it remains unavailable to other students in the district.

“This bill has given a ticket for racist, homophobic people — that this chamber does not support – to pull books that matter to our children,” said state Rep. Robin Bartleman (D-Weston).

The Senate parental rights bill, FL SB1320 (23R), is slated for a second and final hearing before the chamber’s Fiscal Policy committee, although no date has been set as of yet.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/9QsyVJ8
via IFTTT

Read More

Lost in translation: Washington and Brussels face pushback on effort to patch trade rift

The United States and European Union are racing to settle their dispute over tax credits for electric vehicles, but their attempted fix is creating new problems for each of them back home.

Lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic complain leaders are circumventing the standard approval process for free trade agreements in their attempt to heal the rift. The potential deal between the Biden administration and the EU would qualify European automakers for some of the taxpayer subsidies embedded in the Inflation Reduction Act, the $369 billion climate and tax legislation that the U.S. Congress passed last year.

Those negotiations will set a precedent, the lawmakers worry, that could cut Congress and the EU’s member countries out of decisions that carry major political and economic consequences. In the U.S., lawmakers said this week they are weighing action to reclaim their authority.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again so there is no confusion: Congress will not, under any circumstance, forfeit our constitutionally mandated oversight responsibility of all trade matters,” Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), chair of the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, said in a statement Friday. “This is unacceptable and unconstitutional, and I intend to use every tool at my disposal to stop this blatant executive overreach.”

According to a proposed rule the U.S. Treasury Department released Friday, the term “free trade agreement” as it applies to the Inflation Reduction Act includes deals in which the U.S. and other countries reduce, eliminate or refrain from imposing tariffs and export restrictions, and aim to raise standards in areas such as labor rights and environmental protection. That’s a broader definition than has traditionally been used.

Under those criteria, a critical minerals agreement the Biden administration signed with Japan this week, as well as the one the U.S. and EU soon hope to sign, will qualify as “free trade agreements,” even though they have not received congressional approval. That would clear the way for electric vehicles made with minerals from Japanese and European companies to receive additional U.S. tax breaks.

Members of Congress are likely to protest that interpretation in their comments to Treasury, and some have hinted they may take legal action or attempt to pass new legislation in response.

The tug of war between the White House and Congress over trade policy is not new, but it has become more acute under the Biden administration, said Kathleen Claussen, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in international economic law. She anticipates the administration’s definition of “free trade agreement” could wind up in court.

“At stake is the sort of future of how we think about what a trade agreement is,” said Claussen, a former associate general counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. “It's important for Congress to decide sooner rather than later where it is going to draw the line.”

The Inflation Reduction Act — a crucial element of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda — provides a tax credit worth up to $7,500 for consumers who purchase electric vehicles produced in North America, which members of Congress who voted for the law say is critical to spurring the domestic clean tech manufacturing sector.

“We intentionally structured tax credits to not just decarbonize the U.S. economy, but to erase the lead that China and other countries have in manufacturing green infrastructure,” Democratic Sens. Bob Casey and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Sherrod Brown of Ohio wrote in a letter to the Treasury Department sent Thursday.

To qualify for the full IRA tax credit, the vehicle must include a battery made with critical minerals from the U.S. or a “free trade agreement” partner.

That creates a semantic imperative for the U.S. and EU to call any minerals deal a “free trade agreement,” even though such pacts would traditionally require the approval of Congress and, in the European Union, its member countries as well as the European Parliament.

“This is procedurally just very, very complicated,” said one EU diplomat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations. “We want to call it a non-binding instrument, but we have to think about the American domestic context as well. So, it’s better to call it an FTA-light.”

The view from Washington

American presidents have long negotiated “free trade agreements,” but the term is not technically defined in U.S. law. It is commonly understood to be a pact designed to lower tariffs and open foreign markets after winning the approval of Congress, a concept that has been forged through decades of practical experience.

The Biden administration appears to be breaking from that tradition. While the Trump administration did not seek congressional approval for trade deals it brokered with China and Japan, stoking the ire of lawmakers, it did not attempt to define those pacts as equivalent to comprehensive free trade agreements.

USTR has inked sector-specific agreements in the past without seeking the approval of Congress. And the Treasury Department asserts it has the authority to designate a “free trade agreement” in the context of the Inflation Reduction Act because Congress did not define the term when it wrote the text. The definition Treasury released Friday is slated to take effect April 18.

But this week, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office updated its online roster of U.S. free trade agreements to include a new category of deals. There are the “comprehensive free trade agreements” that already exist with 20 other countries, and then there is the new “agreement focusing on free trade in critical minerals” with Japan, which USTR signed earlier this week. Both are designated as “free trade agreements.”

U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle flatly condemned the pact with Japan, not only for the terms of the deal but for how the administration went about negotiating it.

Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and House Ways and Means ranking member Richard Neal (D-Mass.), who also happens to have been U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s former boss when she was a congressional staffer, declared the agreement “unacceptable” in a joint statement.

“It’s clear this agreement is one of convenience,” the two senior Democrats said. And they warned that Tai had exceeded the power given to her by Congress. “The administration does not have the authority to unilaterally enter into free trade agreements.”

Wyden and Neal’s Republican counterparts, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), were also quick to skewer the deal. Smith offered perhaps the most colorful language, saying the administration is “distorting the plain text of U.S. law to write as many green corporate welfare checks as possible.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), one of the key negotiators on the IRA, threatened legal action over the Treasury Department’s interpretation of the electric vehicle tax credit on Wednesday. But he also suggested partners like Japan and the EU should qualify for the perks. His office declined to clarify his position.

In response to lawmaker criticism over the process for finalizing a similar critical minerals deal with Japan, a USTR spokesperson pointed to Tai's recent congressional testimony in which she said "further enhancements" would make it easier for congressional staff to review negotiating text, make text summaries available to the public and hold more meetings with the public.

The view from Brussels

In Brussels, four EU diplomats, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak freely, told POLITICO they are increasingly nervous about the critical minerals negotiations because the legal format of the final deal remains unclear.

The EU’s trade chief Valdis Dombrovskis said at an event earlier this week that “we are currently discussing with the U.S. the exact content and the potential legal procedures.”

Two EU officials, who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity to discuss the unfinished deal, insist the European Commission needs to secure a mandate from member countries for any free trade agreement, even if it’s limited in scope. What’s more, such deals typically require the approval of the European Parliament and EU countries, a process that usually takes several months.

Miriam García Ferrer, a spokesperson for the European Commission, declined to say whether the deal requires a mandate from EU countries. “This will be a specific and targeted arrangement to ensure that EU companies are treated the same way as the U.S. companies under the IRA,” García Ferrer said.

Not all EU members share the same concerns about a mandate. Some EU countries in Brussels are keen to move quickly and avoid distractions that tend to arise in trade negotiations, saying it’s best to keep the end goal in sight of getting concessions from Washington on the Inflation Reduction Act.

Three of the EU diplomats said it would make more sense to wait until the end of the negotiations to determine the legal process on the EU side. “It’s too soon to discuss this,” one diplomat said. “Let’s wait and see what the Commission actually comes up with.”

Another diplomat added that “form should follow substance” and that most EU countries just want the European Commission to come up with a good result.

Moens reported from Brussels. Jakob Hanke Vela and Sarah Anne Aarup also contributed reporting from Brussels.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/o4FOC9K
via IFTTT

Read More

Florida proposal targets transgender bathroom use

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Republican lawmakers in Florida this week introduced legislation that could make it a misdemeanor offense for someone to use certain bathrooms that don’t align with their sex at birth, joining conservatives across the country on an issue that opponents say unfairly targets LGBTQ people.

Named the “Safety in Private Spaces Act,” lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced similar bills that require that people use restrooms and changing facilities according to their sex assigned at birth at places like schools and restaurants. Legislators state in the proposal that the aim is to maintain “public safety, decency, and decorum.” Democrats and LGBTQ advocates oppose the idea, claiming it could spur vigilante “potty police” who feel empowered to harass transgender and queer people in facilities across the state.

“The direction that we are trying to go is the right one: We don’t want boys in girls’ bathrooms under the pretense that they’re girls, but they’re not — they’re boys,” state Sen. Debbie Mayfield (R- Melbourne) said Thursday. “And we don’t want girls going into boys’ bathrooms doing the exact same thing.”

Legislators advanced the bathroom bills through introductory hearings along party lines Thursday in the Senate, by a 15-3 vote, and Tuesday in the House, by a 11-3 vote. The proposals come as Republicans in Florida push culture war bills this year focused on how gender identity and sexual identity intersect with parental rights and education.

State lawmakers have either passed or are considering similar “bathroom bills” in Iowa, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma and Tennessee. In 2016, North Carolina enacted a similar bill but faced widespread blowback from businesses, the NBA and NCAA and eventually repealed the law.

The administration of Virginia GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin in 2022 also enacted a similar policy for the state’s schools that require transgender students to use the bathrooms that correspond to the sex they were assigned to at birth.

Under the Florida legislation, any person 18 years or older could be charged with a second degree felony if they enter a restroom or changing facility designated for the opposite sex and refuse to “immediately depart” when asked by someone else. It also requires local school districts to craft code of conduct rules to discipline students who do the same.

These policies would be enforced at educational institutions, hurricane shelters, substance abuse providers, health care facilities and public accommodations, which by law include lodgings, restaurants, gasoline stations entertainment spaces and more.

There are carve outs in the bill outlining certain instances where someone could be legally allowed to enter a restroom designated for the opposite sex, such as to accompany another person to chaperone a child, elderly or disabled person, for law enforcement purposes or for emergencies.

But those protections are not enough to quell concerns from LGBTQ advocates and Democrats who argue the legislation amounts to harassment for people simply trying to use the restroom. They contend that the proposals would force transgender people to make the “impossible decision” of breaking the law or revealing their private medical information.

“Are we not creating a bathroom patrol where people can stand … and call law enforcement, creating very dangerous situations for trans individuals?” said Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book (D-Plantation). “I am very concerned about what this does, or the implications or … the consequences of something like this.”

The legislation goes further to require that entities seeking operating licenses in Florida must prove their compliance with standards for restrooms and changing facilities, ensuring they have designated spaces for exclusive use by females or males, or unisex facilities.

Businesses that fail to comply with these rules could face fines up to $10,000 levied by the state attorney general. The misdemeanor tied to using a bathroom of the opposite sex misdemeanor could result in up to 60 days in jail or up to a $500 fine.

Lawmakers, who are advancing the bills, acknowledge that they expect to tweak and update the proposals in future committee hearings.

“There are just places where we should be comfortable to do the business that needs to be done in those spaces,” said Sen. Erin Grall (R-Fort Pierce), who is sponsoring the Senate legislation. “And we need to figure out how to get that right.”

The Senate’s bathroom bill, FL SB1674 (23R), is slated for one additional hearing in the Fiscal Policy committee before it would be eligible for a vote from the full chamber. The House bill, FL HB1521 (23R), is assigned to two additional committee stops.

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

Read More

Feds: Fugees rapper Pras Michel ran global influence-peddling scheme for cash

Federal prosecutors on Thursday portrayed rap star Pras Michel as a washed-up, money-hungry entertainer who embarked on a brazen secret-influence scheme aimed at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

“The defendant needed money and was willing to do anything to get it, including being an agent of the Chinese government,” Justice Department attorney Nicole Lockhart told jurors during the government’s opening argument in the criminal foreign-agent and campaign-finance case against Michel, a member of the Fugees. “The defendant wanted money and was willing to break any laws necessary to get paid.”

In her half-hour presentation, Lockhart laid out a dizzying series of allegations against Michel, including claims that over a span of about five years he accepted vast sums from Malaysian businessman Jho Low in order to try to shut down an investigation into Low’s alleged role in looting a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund known as 1MDB.

Some of Low’s money went to Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign and an associated super PAC, while other funds helped back an effort in 2017 to get former President Donald Trump to stop the probe into Low, Lockhart alleged.

Jurors also heard that Michel allegedly enlisted a close Trump ally, former Republican National Committee Deputy Finance Chair Elliott Broidy, to aid Low and to advance another purported goal: getting a wealthy Chinese businessperson, Guo Wengui, deported back to China. Low funded those efforts as well, Lockhart said.

Michel made a staggering $88 million off Low between 2012 and 2017, she added.

“Low had money to burn and the defendant was willing to cash in,” Lockhart said.

The trial in federal court in Washington D.C. is a chance for the government to recover from a string of high-profile courtroom defeats it has suffered in recent years as it followed through on promises to crack down on foreign-influence efforts.

Last November, Trump ally and inaugural committee chair Tom Barrack and an aide were acquitted by a federal jury in Brooklyn on charges they acted as unregistered foreign agents for the United Arab Emirates.

In 2019, a federal jury in Virginia convicted a member of the Trump transition team, Bijan Rafiekian, of acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey. However, a judge later overturned that verdict and ordered a new trial for Rafiekian, who was a business partner of Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Rafiekian’s case is currently on appeal.

Also in 2019, a jury acquitted former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig of a felony charge of scheming to mislead the Justice Department about his work for Ukraine.

Justice Department officials have defended the enforcement drive, stressing that despite the setbacks more people involved in lobbying for foreign interests are registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

At the Michel trial Thursday, the entertainer’s attorney, David Kenner of Encino, Calif., passed up the chance to offer an opening statement. He will get another opportunity to do so after the government presents its case.

Michel's defense team has signaled plans to argue that he believed he was working to advance U.S. interests in his dealings related to Guo and in related efforts to free U.S. citizens held by China.

The trial is expected to bring some star power from Hollywood and the political arena to the federal district courthouse near the Capitol. Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is likely to testify, along with casino mogul Steve Wynn, Broidy and top figures from the Trump administration such as National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has rejected Michel’s attempts to seek testimony from Trump and Obama, but actors Jamie Foxx and Mark Wahlberg, director Martin Scorsese, and civil rights activist Jesse Jackson have also appeared on lists of potential witnesses for the trial.

In her opening statement, Lockhart glossed over Michel’s fame and his musical career, saying only that he had “a successful music album in the 1990s” but was in need of money by the time the alleged scheme began in 2012. Lockhart also seemed eager to de-personalize the case with any jurors who might recognize Michel. After briefly referring to him by name, she called him “the defendant” over and over again throughout her opening argument.

Whatever Michel’s financial condition at the time of the alleged scheme, there’s no doubt that it became dire following his initial indictment on the campaign-finance charges in 2019 and the addition of the unregistered-foreign-agent charges in 2021.

Last year, Michel sold his interest in the rights in his Fugees’ recordings to a private equity group in order to raise money. He also has sought to fundraise for his defense by offering potential financiers a stake in $75 million the government seized from him — a sum he plans to try to recover if he’s acquitted, Reuters reported.

Lockhart spent a half-hour detailing four conspiracies the government is alleging in the complex case. Jurors seemed attentive during her argument, with some taking notes, but the disparate allegations against Michel may have been difficult to absorb in such a brief presentation.

In particular, jurors may puzzle at the bizarre claim that a hip hop star who supported Obama orchestrated an attempt to influence the Trump administration’s decisions about criminal investigations and foreign policy.

Michel is the highest-profile defendant from outside the political world to go on trial in federal court in Washington since Major League Baseball pitcher Roger Clemens stood trial in 2012 on perjury charges. A jury acquitted him on all counts.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/0pVxeic
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden steps up pressure on Fed to toughen rules for regional banks

The White House on Thursday said it will push to reverse the deregulation of regional banks that was carried out under President Donald Trump, heightening the pressure for swift action in the wake of Silicon Valley Bank's collapse.

The Biden administration is urging the Federal Reserve and other independent agencies to toughen rules aimed at reducing banks’ reliance on debt and increasing their cash on hand, according to a White House fact sheet. Those standards, originally put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, were loosened for medium-sized banks in line with a 2018 law.

Yet the details of that law were largely left up to regulators, principally the Fed, to implement, leaving considerable leeway now to tighten rules on banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets.

A White House official told reporters that they believe all the steps they’re pointing to can be accomplished under existing law. Given that the banking agencies — the Fed, the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — are structured to act independently of the president, however, the administration can only apply political pressure.

“A lot of these regulators were nominated by this president in part because they share his view of the kind of bank regulation we want to see,” the official said. “We’re hopeful that they take these steps,” but they have the flexibility to apply the rules as they see fit.

The campaign for tougher rules demonstrates how quickly the political climate for larger banks has shifted since the stunning demise of SVB and fellow regional lender Signature Bank. The change is all the more striking because just a few years ago regional lenders secured bipartisan support for the law that lightened their oversight in comparison to megabanks like Goldman Sachs or Bank of America.

Scrutiny on the banking sector could also blunt efforts by those global giants to head off even tougher rules that the Fed was already contemplating before SVB's demise.

The Bank Policy Institute, which represents both megabanks and large regional firms, hit back.

“It would be unfortunate if the response to bad management and delinquent supervision at SVB were additional regulation on all banks that would impose meaningful costs on the U.S. economy going forward,” BPI President Greg Baer said in a statement. “This has a strong feeling of ready, fire, aim.”

The White House announcement comes just weeks after former Fed Vice Chair Lael Brainard joined the administration as Biden’s top economic policy adviser. She served as the lone Democrat on the Fed’s board during much of the Trump era and dissented against most of the regulatory overhaul that happened during that time.

Among the changes advocated by the White House: making regional banks subject to stress testing annually, under which the government requires them to game out how they might fare under severe economic scenarios.

They also urged the FDIC to shield community banks from bearing the costs of replenishing the deposit insurance fund after the failure of SVB and Signature Bank, something Chair Martin Gruenberg signaled he was open to in hearings this week.

Regulators and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen agreed to back uninsured depositors at both failed firms, fearing runs at other similar institutions — moves expected to cost the FDIC nearly $23 billion.

“Community banks play a really important role in a lot of communities, we think it’s important to preserve that model,” the White House official said. “They were not to blame for the actions that resulted in the interventions.”

That, coupled with statements by Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr that he doesn’t intend to raise loss-absorbing capital requirements for small banks indicates that they may be shielded from the bulk of the blowback.

Both Gruenberg and Barr were grilled by lawmakers at hourslong hearings this week in both the House and the Senate, where they indicated that tougher rules for regional banks are in store.

Barr, who was nominated by Biden and confirmed last July, is conducting a review of what went wrong in the Fed’s oversight of SVB, with a report expected by May 1 that will recommend regulatory and supervisory actions.

In its fact sheet, the White House also backed early moves by regulators toward requiring large regional banks to hold long-term debt that could be “bailed in” as equity in case of failure.

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

Read More

Bankman-Fried pleads not guilty to five new charges

NEW YORK — Sam Bankman-Fried, the disgraced founder of the cryptocurrency platform FTX, pleaded not guilty on Thursday to additional charges alleging that he committed bank fraud and bribed Chinese officials.

Bankman-Fried, who flew from his parents’ home in California where he is under house arrest, appeared in a Manhattan courtroom and entered the plea in response to the five new charges that federal prosecutors recently unveiled. He now faces a total of 13 criminal counts.

His attorney, Mark Cohen, indicated that he plans to challenge the new charges, which prosecutors filed after Bankman-Friend was extradited from the Bahamas.

In the newest charge, prosecutors alleged on Tuesday that the former billionaire bribed Chinese officials after his trading firm, Alameda Research, was locked out of trading accounts on two of China’s crypto exchanges.

After the officials received an initial $40 million payment and unlocked the accounts, Bankman-Fried directed his employees to transfer “tens of millions of dollars in cryptocurrency to complete the bribe,” according to court documents.

Bankman-Fried nervously nodded and smiled at reporters as he entered the courtroom. He did not answer questions.

Cohen said he plans to challenge the charges based on extradition rules.

Because extradition treaties are cooperative agreements between two countries, both countries must agree to the charges and rules surrounding the surrender of a defendant. Cohen could argue that federal prosecutors skirted Bahamian authorities when bringing the additional charges. Bankman-Fried did not challenge his extradition, but handed himself over to U.S. authorities in December.

His criminal trial is scheduled to begin in October.

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

Read More