Connect with us

News

Read the Full Matt Gaetz Report from the House Ethics Committee

Published

on

Read the Full Matt Gaetz Report from the House Ethics Committee

credibility issues, it would not rely exclusively on information provided by Mr. Greenberg in
making any findings.
Shortly after DOJ withdrew its deferral request and the Committee reauthorized its review,
the Committee sent DOJ a request for information. After three months without a response despite
repeated follow up, the Committee submitted FOIA requests to several relevant DOJ offices, which
to date have not been adequately processed.6 The Committee continued to reach out to DOJ
throughout 2023, having still not received a substantive response to its request for information.
On January 12, 2024, the Committee received its first correspondence from DOJ on the matter. At
that time, DOJ provided no substantive response or explanation for its delay; instead, DOJ simply
stated that it “do[es] not provide non-public information about law enforcement investigations that
do not result in charges.”7 This “policy” is, however, inconsistent with DOJ’s historical conduct
with respect to the Committee and its unique role in upholding the integrity of the House. 8
Thereafter, the Committee determined to issue a subpoena to DOJ to obtain records relating
to its investigation of Representative Gaetz. DOJ did not comply with the subpoena by the date
required, but suggested it remained “committed to good-faith engagement with the Committee.”
In the spirit of cooperation, the Committee provided a list of specific responsive documents, setting
999
6 The U.S. Attorney’s Office affirmatively declined the Committee’s FOIA request as “categorically exempt from
disclosure.” However, the reasons cited for not disclosing responsive records are not applicable to the Committee’s
request it did not consider the special access granted to Congress pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 522(8)(d) (stating that
FOIA “is not an authority to withhold information from Congress” even when an exemption may otherwise be
implicated), nor did it consider the overriding public interest exception, which has been applied to information that
would inform the public about proven violations of public trust (see, e.g., Columbia Packing Co., Inc v. Department
of Agriculture, 564 F.3d 495, 499 (1st Cir. 1977) (federal employees found guilty of accepting bribes);
Congressional News Syndicate v. Department of Justice, 438 F. Supp. 538, 544 (D.D.C. 1977) (misconduct by
White House staffers)).
7
8
Letter from U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, to Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member
Susan Wild, Committee on Ethics (Jan. 12, 2024).
Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Representative Don Young, H. Rept. 113-487, 113th Cong., 2d Sess. (2014)
(hereinafter Young) (discussing information and documents provided to the Committee by DOJ relating to a Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation of Representative Young); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In
the Matter of Representative James McDermott, H. Rept. 109-732, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (2006) (hereinafter
McDermott) (noting that the investigative subcommittee requested and obtained documents from DOJ regarding its
investigation of the matter); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Jay Kim, H.
Rept. 105-797, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 79 (1998) (noting the FBI provided “valuable assistance to the Investigative
Subcommittee throughout its inquiry.”); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation Pursuant to House
Resolution 12 Concerning Alleged Illicit Use or Distribution of Drugs by Members, Officers, or Employees of the
House, H. Rept. 98-559, 98th Cong., 1 st Sess. 21 (1983) (“the Special Counsel and the Attorney General entered
into an agreement whereby the Department was to provide the Committee non-privileged results of the
Department’s drug investigation, provided that access to the material was restricted to certain named individuals and
that certain security precautions were taken.”); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Representative Raymond F. Lederer, H. Rept. 97-110,97th Cong., 1 st Sess. (1981); Comm. on Standards of Official
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Michael J. Myers, H. Rept. 96-1387, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980); Comm.
on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative John W. Jenrette, Jr., H. Rept. 96-1537, 96th
Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1980) (noting the Special Counsel and DOJ entered into an agreement “covering the receipt of
confidential information in respect to the investigation” into a Member who was a subject of DOJ investigations
known as ABSCAM).
9 Letter from U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, to Chairman Michael Guest and Ranking Member
Susan Wild, Committee on Ethics (Feb. 13, 2024).
5

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending