The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: attorney general
Leonard Leo

GOP Lashes Out At D.C. Attorney General Probing Extremist Profiteer Leo

GOP activist Leonard Leo is co-chair of the influential Federalist Society, which has produced all six of the Supreme Court of the United States' (SCOTUS) conservative jurists — including Chief Justice John Roberts. And ever since the office of Washington, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb started investigating the Federalist Society for alleged violations of its nonprofit status, Leo's allies have been attacking him every step of the way.

Politico reporter Heidi Przybyla wrote Saturday that Schwalb has been steadily battling an onslaught of GOP attacks that include conservative media, 12 Republican state attorneys general and even Congressional committee chairs. This assault began last August, after Schwalb announced he was investigating the Federalist Society for alleged self-dealing. Leo is accused of using millions of dollars in tax-exempt organization funds to prop up his private consulting firm, CRC Advisors.

According to the outlet, both Reps. James Comer (R-KY) and Jim Jordan (R-OH), who chair the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, respectively, announced their own investigations into Schwalb on October 30 — shortly after Schwalb announced his own investigation into Leo's group. One of Leo's organizations is the Concord Fund (previously known as the Judicial Crisis Network), which has donated $20 million to the Republican Attorneys General Association since 2014. And Przybyla noted that 10 days before Comer and Jordan announced their investigation, Concord hired a Virginia-based lobbying firm to handle issues relating to "law enforcement" and "oversight."

"The decision to launch a probe was not influenced by the lobbying firm," a spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee told Politico. "Any suggestion that it was is lazy, in bad faith, and completely ridiculous. It’s well-known that this probe is part of a broader portfolio the congressmen are pursuing related to the weaponization of the federal government."

While the suggestion that Leo's money and connections are influencing the attacks on the man investigating him makes Republicans bristle, it's difficult to ignore the timing of large sums of money changing hands. Just one day after both Comer and Jordan threatened to subpoena Schwalb, a House Republican leadership-aligned political action committee received a $250,000 contribution from the Concord Fund. Politico reported that it was Concord's first donation to a federal PAC in nine years.

Republicans' ferocity in attacking Schwalb could be attributed to Leo's outsized influence over today's GOP — particularly as it concerns the GOP's efforts to cement a conservative SCOTUS majority for decades.

"[Leo] has been called former President Donald Trump’s 'court whisperer' for helping to choose and advocate for his Supreme Court nominees," Przybyla wrote. "His aligned network of tax-exempt nonprofits is also a major contributor to Project 2025, an initiative seeking to create a 'government in waiting' for another Trump term."

Caroline Ciccone, who is president of anti-corruption watchdog group Accountability.US, directly attributed the various attacks on Schwalb to Leo's far-right organizational muscle.

"Leonard Leo is working to implement policies with a vision that’s far too extreme for most Americans," Ciccone said. "Now, members of Congress have weaponized their government power against his critics."

In addition to being investigated for self-dealing by Schwalb's office, Leo's group is also being investigated by the Senate Judiciary Committee for its alleged facilitation of lavish gifts to far-right justices like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. In late November, the committee sent subpoenas to both Leo and billionaire business magnate Harlan Crow, who took Justice Thomas and his family on several exceedingly expensive getaways.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

John Cornyn

'Hard To Run From Prison, Ken': Senator Rips Indicted Texas Attorney General

Former Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) is among the Senate Republicans who is being mentioned as a possible replacement for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who on Wednesday announced that he is retiring from that position. The 82-year-old McConnell plans to serve out the rest of his term, which doesn't end until January 3, 2027, but he is stepping down as GOP leader in the U.S. Senate in November.

Far-right Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is hoping that someone other than Cornyn will be chosen. Although the conservative Cornyn has endorsed Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, Paxton believes that he isn't MAGA enough.

Paxton, who has been battling legal problems — including securities fraud charges — but survived an impeachment effort in the Texas legislature, attacked Cornyn in a February 28 post on X (formerly Twitter).

The Texas AG wrote, "It will be difficult for @JohnCornyn to be an effective leader since he is anti-Trump, anti-gun, and will be focused on his highly competitive primary campaign in 2026. Republicans deserve better in their next leader and Texans deserve another conservative Senator."

Cornyn, in response to Paxton's tweet, posted, "Hard to run from prison, Ken."

Paxton has been battling legal problems for almost a decade.

In 2015, Paxton was serving his first term as Texas attorney general when he was indicted on securities fraud charges And his legal problems have persisted; the case has been delayed but is scheduled to go to trial in April. Paxton, as Cornyn mentioned, is still in danger of going to prison.

Despite his legal problems, Paxton was reelected as state attorney general in 2018 and won a third term in 2022.

Paxton, in 2023, was impeached in the GOP-controlled Texas House of Representatives, and fellow Republicans argued that acts of corruption and allegations of bribery made him unfit to continue serving as Texas attorney general. But he was later acquitted in an impeachment trial in the Texas Senate, where Republicans also have a majority.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Trump Faces Huge Potential Damages In January 6 Civil Lawsuits

Trump Faces Huge Potential Damages In January 6 Civil Lawsuits

Before Justice Arthur Engoron released his verdict in New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud case, many legal experts predicted that Trump would get clobbered financially. And that's exactly what happened.

On Friday afternoon, February 16, Engoron ordered Trump to pay almost $355 million. But when interest in factored in, that figure increases to $450 million.

Engoron's decision comes after two separate civil defamation lawsuits by former Elle Magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll.

Trump was ordered to pay Carroll $5 million in damages in her first lawsuit against him and $83.3 million in the second one. Between James' case (including the interest) and the damages in Carroll's lawsuits, Trump owes over $535 million.

According to Forbes' Alison Durkee, those aren't the only civil cases that Trump needs to be worried about.

In an article published on February 19, Durkee explains, "Former President Donald Trump now owes more than $440 million before interest in civil court fines after being ordered to pay more than $354 million Friday in the civil fraud case against him and his company — and it's possible more damages awards could be coming as the ex-president faces more civil cases seeking to hold him liable for the January 6 riot. Trump still faces multiple civil lawsuits — which have largely been consolidated in court — brought by Democratic lawmakers and Capitol police officers, which seek to hold Trump personally liable for the January 6 riot."

Durkee adds, "Those cases are now moving forward after federal district and appeals courts refused to throw them out, rejecting Trump's argument that he has 'immunity' because the allegations stem from actions he took as president."

Durkee notes that the "January 6 civil cases" are "moving forward again in federal district court after appeals courts refused to throw them out." A hearing, according to Durkee, has been scheduled for this Friday, February 23.

"Trump has denied the allegations against him in the civil January 6 lawsuits, accusing Democratic lawmakers in his motion to dismiss of 'attempting to undermine the First Amendment by bringing this lawsuit, based on their longstanding and public grudges against President Trump,'" Durkee reports. "The lawmakers 'fail to plausibly plead any viable conspiracy theory against President Trump,' Trump's attorneys wrote…. The ex-president has continued to insist ex-presidents have 'absolute immunity' even as courts have rejected his arguments, claiming such immunity is necessary even when their actions 'cross the line.'"

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Judge Merrick Garland

At Judiciary Hearing, Garland Vows Tough Prosecution Of ‘Heinous’ Jan. 6 Insurrection

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Merrick Garland finally got his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Monday. Not for the original position for which he was nominated by President Barack Obama—the Supreme Court—back in 2016, but for attorney general under President Joe Biden. The chair and ranking member of the committee, Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Chuck Grassley, each brought up that contemptible episode when Republicans under Mitch McConnell refused, for eight months, to consider his nomination. "I want to welcome you back to the Senate Judiciary Committee," Durbin said. "I know this return trip has been a long time in planning and you're here, finally."

Grassley was, let's say, less gracious. "It was an election year with a divided Congress," Grassley said, excusing the blockade. Then the nasty. "Yes, it's true I didn't give Judge Garland a hearing. […] I also didn't mischaracterize his record. I didn't attack his character. I didn't go through his high school yearbook." Given that there aren't multiple allegations of rape against Garland going back decades, no, that would not have been appropriate. Ah, unity.

At the outset of the hearing, Durbin acknowledged Garland's unique qualifications for this particular moment in time: his service as a top official in the Clinton Justice Department investigating the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people. "When you are confirmed, Judge Garland, you, along with the rest of this nation, will continue to grapple with the January 6th attacks," Durbin said. "As nation's chief law enforcement officer, you will be tasked with the solemn duty to responsibly investigate the events of that day, to prosecute all of the individuals responsible and to prevent future attacks driven by hate, inflammatory words, and bizarre conspiracy theories," Durbin continued, not really asking a question.

Garland responded that he believes the current situation is "more dangerous" than Oklahoma City, and that the investigation in the attempted coup and insurrection will be his "first priority." He elaboratedon that in answer to a question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein. He called the insurrection "the most heinous attack on the Democratic processes that I have ever seen and one I never expected to see in my lifetime." He said that he will ensure that career prosecutors working on the investigation "all the resources they could possibly require." Garland also pledged to cooperate with congressional probes into the family separation policy from the previous administration. "I think that the policy was shameful. I can't imagine anything worse than tearing parents from their children. And we will provide all the cooperation that we possibly can," he told Durbin.

Grassley had one major concern: was Garland going to keep on with the Trump-era probes by John Durham, the special counsel into that other special counsel investigation by Robert Mueller on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the investigation by Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who is heading an investigation involving Hunter Biden's taxes. Garland was noncommittal in response. He told Grassley "I don't have any information about the [Durham] investigation," and said of the existence of the Durham probe, "I have no reason to think that was not the correct decision. […] I don't have any reason to think he should not be in place." He said he had not spoken with Durham and would only dismiss Durham and the probe for cause. As for whether he might have talked with President Biden about the Hunter Biden probe? "The answer to your question is no." Garland told Grassley that he would leave decisions regarding the Hunter Biden probe to others in the department.

The attacks on the Congress and the rise of the white supremacist insurrectionists are key. In his opening statement Garland pledged "If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government." He's well positioned to do so. "This almost feels like a precursor. How much more experience could you possibly have in domestic terrorism?" said Donna Bucella, a former Justice Department official who also worked on the Oklahoma City case. "He'll be very methodical. I think he'll demand it's being done the right way."