Connect with us

News

Ethics panel admonishes Graham

Published

on

Ethics panel admonishes Graham

The Senate Choose Committee on Ethics formally admonished Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter Thursday for soliciting marketing campaign contributions for the 2022 Senate run-off race in Georgia throughout an interview with Fox Information within the Russell Senate Workplace Constructing.  

The Ethics Committee discovered that Graham “straight solicited marketing campaign contributions” on behalf of Republican Senate candidate Hershel Walker “5 separate instances” throughout the nine-minute interview with Fox.  

The panel concluded that Graham “impermissibly performed marketing campaign exercise in a federal constructing” and that his actions violated the usual that senators might solely use public sources for official actions and never for partisan political exercise.  

“Your actions didn’t uphold that commonplace, leading to hurt to the general public belief and confidence in america Senate. You might be right here by admonished,” Senate Ethics Committee Chairman Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Vice Chairman James Lankford (R-Okla.) wrote within the March 23 letter to Graham.  

The panel revealed that it discovered that Graham violated Senate requirements of conduct in October of 2020 when he “straight solicited marketing campaign contributions” for his personal marketing campaign committee” throughout a media interview within the Dirksen Senate Workplace Constructing.  

Advertisement

Coons and Lankford defined the committee decided that conduct was “inadvertent, technical, or in any other case of a de minimis nature” and ultimately dismissed a criticism in regards to the incident in March of 2021. Graham was knowledgeable of that discovering and motion by a personal letter. 

The Ethics panel, nevertheless, thought-about the October 2020 infraction of Senate guidelines in its resolution to publicly admonish Graham on Thursday.  

It famous that Graham solicited contributions for Walker’s marketing campaign “regardless of the Committee’s particular steering following your violation in October of 2020.”  

The committee knowledgeable Graham that it initiated an inquiry of Graham’s solicitation of funds for Walker after receiving a criticism that included a hyperlink to a video clip of the interview.  

Walker misplaced to Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) within the December runoff.  

Advertisement

The panel acknowledged that Graham supplied info to the committee throughout the inquiry.  

The Senate Ethics guide states that federal regulation — 18 U.S.C. Part 607 — restricts the solicitation or receipt of political contributions in federal buildings or different federal services. 

The states that “it shall be illegal for any particular person to solicit or obtain any contribution … in any room or constructing occupied within the discharge of official duties.”  

The letter is notable because the Ethics Committee hardly ever takes public motion towards sitting senators.

The panel admonished Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) in April of 2018 for violating Senate requirements by “knowingly and repeatedly” accepting items “of serious worth” from a supporter with out acquiring official approval and for failing to reveal these items.

Advertisement

The Division of Justice indicted Menendez in 2015 for accepting improper items however didn’t convict him at trial. 

The Ethics panel publicly introduced in November of 2017 that it had opened a preliminary inquiry into allegations towards then-Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) after 5 girls accused him of sexual misconduct. 

Franken apologized for his habits. 

This story was up to date at 7:36 p.m.

Advertisement

Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This materials is probably not printed, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

News

Trump’s Deportation Efforts Hit Roadblock After Judge Issues Temporary Order

Published

on

Trump’s Deportation Efforts Hit Roadblock After Judge Issues Temporary Order

President Trump’s efforts to deport migrants to places other than their country of origin hit a new roadblock on Friday, when a federal judge issued a temporary order requiring the administration to give migrants an opportunity to contest their removal on the grounds that they might be at risk of persecution or torture.

U.S. District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy, who sits in Boston, ordered the government to give migrants a chance to contest their removal to a so-called third country under a federal law that limits deportations to places where the deportees’ “life or freedom would be threatened.” He also cited a United Nations treaty against torture.

The Trump administration has struck deals with Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Mexico and El Salvador as part of its efforts to remove people who are difficult to deport to their home countries. Hundreds of migrants from countries in Africa and Asia, for instance, have been deported to Panama, a country those migrants had no ties to.

In prior administrations, strained diplomatic relationships and difficulties with paperwork have made it hard to deport large numbers of people to certain countries.

The new order is limited to migrants who have a “final order of removal,” meaning their case has already been considered by an immigration court. The administration has also claimed it has the authority to circumvent much of that process using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which it has used to remove more than 200 Venezuelans from the United States to El Salvador. Another judge has blocked that use of the law, which only applies during wartime. On Friday, the administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Advertisement

The plaintiffs in the case are four migrants, identified only by their initials, who are citizens of Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador and Guatemala. Two are in the United States and fear they will be deported when they arrive for upcoming check-ins with immigration authorities. A third is being held at a county prison in Massachusetts; the fourth “remains in hiding in Guatemala,” a country where a U.S. immigration judge “found it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted,” according to the complaint.

Their lawsuit claims that the administration’s deportation policies violate the Constitution’s guarantee to due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Muneer Ahmad, a professor at Yale Law School who represents immigrants as part of the school’s Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, called the decision “important,” adding that it would slow what he called “the Trump administration’s efforts to bum-rush immigrants out of the country in disregard of these core legal obligations to protect against torture or persecution.”

Judge Murphy has scheduled a hearing for April 10 to consider whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which would be more lasting than Friday’s temporary restraining order.

Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, noted that the case was one of a series targeting the Trump administration’s lightning-fast efforts to deport migrants.

Advertisement

“This will affect the administration’s ability to carry out more high-profile removals to third countries, like those to Panama, Costa Rica and El Salvador,” she said.

Tim Balk contributed reporting from New York.

Continue Reading

News

US stocks tumble as deepening consumer gloom raises stagflation fears

Published

on

US stocks tumble as deepening consumer gloom raises stagflation fears

Stay informed with free updates

Wall Street stocks dropped on Friday as signs of strain among American consumers added to worries the US is heading for a bout of stagflation.

A batch of data on Friday added fresh evidence that consumers are growing deeply concerned about how Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs will affect the world’s largest economy, while a separate report showed the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation measure rose in February.

The gloomy data comes at a time when investors are worried that Trump’s trade levies combined with a broader sense of uncertainty will hurt US economic growth while also increasing price pressures. The new reports sent investors rushing away from US equities and into havens.

Advertisement

Wall Street’s blue-chip S&P 500 was down 2 per cent during mid-afternoon trading on Friday while the tech-focused Nasdaq Composite was 2.6 per cent lower. US government debt rallied, pushing the 10-year Treasury yield down 0.11 percentage points to 4.26 per cent.

“US data is only inflaming stagflation fears,” said James Knightley, an economist at investment bank ING. “Hot inflation and cooling consumer spending are trends that are likely to be intensified by President Trump’s aggressive moves on tariffs and government spending cuts.”

A survey by the University of Michigan released on Friday showed that consumer sentiment plunged in March as Americans worried about their job prospects, inflation and income levels. Households also forecast inflation over the long term of 4.1 per cent, the highest since 1993.

“This month’s decline [in sentiment] reflects a clear consensus across all demographic and political affiliations,” the University of Michigan said.

It added: “Republicans joined independents and Democrats in expressing worsening expectations since February for their personal finances, business conditions, unemployment and inflation.”

Advertisement

Consumer spending, meanwhile, rose 0.4 per cent last month, a reversal from January’s 0.3 per cent decline, but not as strong as the 0.5 per cent increase economists forecast, a separate report from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis showed.

Pantheon Macroeconomics’ senior US economist Oliver Allen said the consumer spending data was “disappointing” and that an “underlying slowdown in demand growth also seems to be under way”.

Goldman Sachs cut its forecast for first-quarter GDP in response to the weak data, by 0.4 percentage points to an annualised growth rate of 0.6 per cent, citing “softer than expected” personal spending growth in February and a downward revision to January’s figure.

The Atlanta Fed also cut its running forecast for first-quarter GDP to show a contraction of 2.8 per cent on an annualised basis, compared with 1.8 per cent as recently as Wednesday. Its model has contrasted with Wall Street banks, which broadly still expect growth in early 2025.

The BEA’s report on Friday also showed that the core reading of the personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index was up 2.8 per cent in February from a year ago.

Advertisement

Economists expected the index, a measure that is closely watched by the Fed which strips out food and energy, to be up 2.7 per cent, unchanged from January’s upwardly revised rate. The main PCE index rose 2.5 per cent last month, unchanged from January.

The Fed earlier this month boosted its forecast for inflation and cut its growth outlook. Fed chair Jay Powell said at the time that the US economy was still in good shape and the central bank did “not need to be in a hurry” to cut interest rates after reducing them by 1 percentage point last year.

However, the president of the Chicago branch of the Fed, Austan Goolsbee, told the Financial Times this week that the central bank was no longer on the “golden path” of 2023 and 2024 when inflation appeared to be returning to the 2 per cent target without derailing economic growth or lifting unemployment.

Continue Reading

News

What to know about the big law firms in Donald Trump’s crosshairs

Published

on

What to know about the big law firms in Donald Trump’s crosshairs

Several large law firms have found themselves in President Donald Trump’s crosshairs since his return to the White House in January.

Newsweek reached out to each of these firms for comment via email.

Why It Matters

Trump is facing two new legal challenges from Jenner & Block and WilmerHale on Friday over executive orders aiming to suspend security clearances of their attorneys and prohibit their employees from accessing federal buildings. He has issued orders against several major law firms that have previously been critical of his actions.

What to Know

Jenner & Block and WilmerHale filed separate complaints in federal court asking judges to block these orders on Friday, raising concerns that they are an unconstitutional attempt to punish them for their past advocacy.

President Donald Trump appears in the White House on January 30, 2025.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

He previously targeted two other law firms, Perkins Coie, and Paul, Weiss with similar orders.

Advertisement

Here is an overview of each of these cases.

Jenner & Block

Jenner & Block, a law firm with offices across the United States that has faced scrutiny from the Trump administration for hiring Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer who served on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that probed Trump during his first term.

Mueller investigated alleged Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has described the case as politically motivated.

“Andrew Weissmann’s career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power, including devastating tens of thousands of American families who worked for the now defunct Arthur Andersen LLP, only to have his unlawfully aggressive prosecution overturned by the Supreme Court,” Trump wrote in his executive order.

The firm slammed the order as an “an unconstitutional abuse of power against lawyers, their clients, and the legal system.”

Advertisement

“It is intended to hamper the ability of individuals and businesses to have the lawyers of their choice zealously represent them,” the firm wrote in their lawsuit against the president. “And it is intended to coerce law firms and lawyers into renouncing the Administration’s critics and ceasing certain representations adverse to the government.”

WilmerHale

The order against WilmerHale accused the firm of engaging in “obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” efforts to discriminate based on race and its alleged stance on immigration policies. It also raised concerns about its hiring of Mueller and some of his aides.

Mueller, like Wiessmann, rejoined the firm in 2021 after the investigation, but he has since retired.

“While most litigation requires discovery to unearth retaliatory motive, the Order makes no secret of its intent to punish WilmerHale for its past and current representations of clients before the Nation’s courts and for its perceived connection to the views that Mr. Mueller expressed as Special Counsel,” the firm’s case says, according to The Associated Press.

Perkins Coie

Trump’s executive order against Perkins Coie was released earlier this year, and court proceedings are ongoing. Judge Beryll Howell has blocked the administration from enforcing the order, and Trump’s attorneys are trying to have her removed from the case.

Advertisement

Similar to other cases, Trump raised concerns about its ties to investigations into his alleged ties to Russia in his executive order. Perkins Coie has said it’s suffering financial fallout from the order after clients with government contracts ended their legal arrangements with the firm.

“This executive order takes a wrecking ball to the rule of law, to the principles that promote democracy, Dane Butswinkas, an attorney representing Perkins Coie, previously said of the case.

Paul, Weiss

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP a firm with more than 2,000 attorneys, earlier in March capitulated to Trump, agreeing too give $40 million in free legal aid to charities he supports and end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs to continue winning government contracts.

He has since lifted the ban on the firm receiving federal contracts.

Trump’s case against the firm pointed to its employment of Mark Pomerantz, who was previously involved in parts of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into hush money payments allegedly made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. Trump was found guilty in the case last year but is appealing the ruling. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and said the case was politically motivated.

Advertisement

What People Are Saying

Harrison Fields, the White House deputy press secretary, to Newsweek on Friday: “Democrats and their law firms weaponized the legal process to try to punish and jail their political opponents. The President’s executive orders are lawful directives to ensure that the President’s agenda is implemented and that law firms comply with the law.”

Former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance in a Substack post Friday: “Expect more from the law firms. The increasing swiftness of the responses show that they now anticipate and understand that they are under attack from a previously unthinkable place, the White House. The Wilmer Hale firm filed their lawsuit less than a full day after Trump took action against them. These firms are prepared to fight it out in the one place where Trump can be forced to listen: The courts.”

What Happens Next

These legal cases are set to continue in the coming weeks and months.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending