U.S. Attorney meets with staff at Syracuse's United States Attorney's Office
SYRAUSE, N.Y (WSYR–TV)– United States Attorney John A. Sarcone III met with Syracuse's staff of the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York on March 26.
The Northern District of New York encompasses 32 counties in Northern and Central New York, and employs staff in offices in Syracuse, Albany, Binghamton, and Plattsburgh. The Syracuse Office employs 21 Assistant U.S. Attorneys and 21 support personnel.
While visiting, Sarcone addressed the staff and expressed his desire to support the important work done by the DOJ.
'I will bring leadership to an office that has extensive experience in the district,' he said.
15 DOCCS staff members being investigated for inmate death at Mid-State Correctional Facility
U.S. Attorney meets with staff at Syracuse's United States Attorney's Office
Chicken sales can soon resume at Regional Market store after follow-up testing shows no more signs of bird flu
The MOST opens new Onondaga Grown exhibit in partnership with the Food Bank of CNY
Syracuse isn't done with winter just yet
He also highlighted his plan to fight for funding and resources to continue to do the work and address the surge of illegal immigration and associated crime at the Northern border.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Has Long Been Itching To Use The Military On American Streets
A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM's Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version. We come into the new week with more weekend news to process than we've had since February or March, so I'm going to jump right into it. I tried to condense it as much as possible, grouping like things together, in roughly descending order of importance. One note: I wrote extensively about the return of Abrego Garcia on Friday so I didn't include it here given the volume of other news, but we'll come back to this, especially the news that the criminal division chief in Nashville resigned over the Abrego Garcia indictment. In the meantime, Abrego Garcia's lawyers filed a flaming retort last night to the Trump DOJ's attempt to end the original case and sidestep the contempt of court proceeding entirely. We can't talk about the protests in Los Angeles against mass deportation and President Trump itching to send in the military without a quick reminder that we all knew there was an extremely high risk that if Trump were re-elected he would provoke civil unrest in order to use it as a pretext for lawless actions he was already determined to take. It's too early to say whether this particular incident ends up being the defining episode of the erosion of the line between the military and domestic law enforcement. But it's understandable why everyone has a hair trigger about Trump sending in the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Two things in particular: The President's memo was concerningly open-ended. It didn't specify Los Angeles or California; it applies anywhere. It empowered the defense secretary 'to employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary.' It broadly defined protests as rebellion: 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made a big deal over the weekend about a detachment of 500 Marines at Twentynine Palms being ready to provide backup to the National Guard. A former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau told Fox News: 'This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.' The most astute analysis: Law professor Chris Mirasola, who used to work in the DoD Office of General Counsel, unpacks the presidential memo. The NYT's Charlie Savage on the various legal issues implicated. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck on what the presidential proclamation did and did not do and why it remains alarming. A helpful thread from Carrie A. Lee, a former associate professor at the US Army War College: 'I'll say it over and over again; you can't build the mass deportation machine without first building the police state machine.'–Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council ABC News suspended veteran newsman Terry Moran for a blistering tweet about White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. Here's the tweet: A great visualization from Amanda Shendruk and Catherine Rampell on the people Trump doesn't want to exist: This is part of a broader campaign to delete the statistical and visual evidence of undesirables, or at least those who may not fit into President Donald Trump's conception of the new American 'golden age.' Entire demographics are being scrubbed from records of both America's past and present — including people of color, transgender people, women, immigrants and people with disabilities. They are now among America's 'missing persons.' The Trump administration has forced out two senior FBI officials and punished a third for his friendship with former FBI agent Peter Strzok, the longtime Trump target. Damian Williams, the former U.S. attorney in Manhattan, is leaving Paul Weiss, which cut a deal with President Trump, and joining Jenner & Block, which in contrast sued over Trump's executive order against it and won. Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio, Zachary Rehl, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Dominic Pezzola – all convicted in the Jan. 6 attack then given clemency by President Trump – have sued prosecutors and FBI agents in federal court in Florida over their prosecutions, demanding $100 million in punitive damages. An alleged series of thefts of combat equipment from an Army Ranger regiment in Washington state led to the arrest earlier this month of two veterans at a home full of Nazi and white supremacy paraphernalia and a stockpile of stolen weapons, the NYT reports. The Forward: ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt compared pro-Palestinian student protesters to ISIS and al-Qaeda in an address to Republican attorneys general. A 6-3 Supreme Court granted DOGE access to confidential Social Security records, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasting the decision in a written dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor Jackson. Over the objections of the three liberal justices, the Supreme Court cut back the scope of discovery the watchdog group CREW can seek from DOGE. Frank Bisignano, the new head of the Social Security Administration, declared himself to be 'fundamentally a DOGE person.' In a widely panned decision, two Trump appointees on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals largely reinstated the Trump White House's ban on the Associated Press in retaliation for not using 'Gulf of America' in its stories. Adam Bonica used computational text analysis to examine judicial decisions in nearly 300 cases involving the Trump administration and found what he called an 'institutional chorus of constitutional alarm': The sharp language from the bench isn't judicial activism; it's the sound of democracy's defense mechanisms under unprecedented stress. These interventions span the political spectrum. Judges were responding not to partisan disagreement but to actions that crossed fundamental legal and constitutional lines. The alarm is being sounded by conservative and liberal judges in a range of cases, many of which you'll be familiar with from Morning Memo.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US team investigating foreign bribery dwindles, sources say
By Andrew Goudsward, Sarah N. Lynch and Chris Prentice WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Justice Department's team dedicated to investigating allegations of foreign bribery has dwindled as President Donald Trump's administration reviews its enforcement of a decades-old law aimed at preventing corruption, according to three people familiar with the matter. The DOJ's Fraud Section unit tasked with enforcing the anti-bribery law has shrunk to about 15 prosecutors, according to two of the sources. That number is down from 32 as of a January report published on the department's website. The cuts follow Trump's executive order in February calling for a pause in enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a 1977 law that prohibits companies that operate in the U.S. from bribing foreign officials and has become a cornerstone of federal efforts to combat corruption. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment. The DOJ launched a 180-day review of its enforcement of the FCPA following Trump's order, which kicked off an exodus of staff from the unit. Prosecutors largely moved elsewhere in the Justice Department's Criminal Division, including its Healthcare and Marketplace Fraud units, two of the sources said. New guidance on how prosecutors are to handle FCPA cases is being drafted and expected to be released soon, one of the sources said. Attorney General Pam Bondi in February directed foreign bribery prosecutors to prioritize cases related to drug cartels, a Trump administration emphasis that has not traditionally been a focus of the unit. A memo from the Criminal Division last month listed foreign bribery below issues such as fraud in government programs and tariff evasion as corporate enforcement priorities for the Trump administration. The DOJ has been scaling back its enforcement against white-collar crimes and focusing on different types of cases. It has also dropped other initiatives aimed at preventing corruption. (Reporting Chris Prentice in New York, Andrew Goudward and Sarah N. Lynch in Washington; Editing by Scott Malone and Rod Nickel)
New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
Lawyers urging ‘caution' on antitrust remedies in Google search trial have cozy ties to Big Tech
A group of prominent lawyers claimed to be objective last month as they urged a federal judge to take 'caution' when imposing antitrust remedies against Google's online search empire — but many of them have cozy ties to Big Tech, The Post has learned. US District Judge Amit Mehta is expected to rule by August on the best way to rein in Google's illegal dominance over online search after ruling last year that the company was a 'monopolist.' The Justice Department, rather than merely punishing past misdeeds, wants Google and CEO Sundar Pichai to sell the Chrome web browser, among other remedies. On May 6, a group of former DOJ and Federal Trade Commission antitrust enforcers submitted an amicus brief warning the federal judge against aggressive remedies. The lawyers said their brief was made 'in support of neither party' and was intended to guide Mehta on following the 'proper remedy standard.' However, many of brief's coauthors have direct or indirect links to Google and other Big Tech firms. That includes Joe Sims, who last year dismissed criticism of Google's widespread evidence destruction as 'silly,' and Willard Tom, who once defended Google in the high-profile antitrust lawsuit filed by 'Fortnite' maker Epic Games. Their arguments closely match those of the defense offered by Google, which claims the DOJ's proposals go far beyond the bounds of antitrust law and that the court risks jeopardizing American AI leadership – and even national security. The lawyers' links to Big Tech raised alarms with Google's critics, including Sacha Haworth, executive director at the Tech Oversight Project, who told The Post that it 'speaks volumes that the only people rushing to Google's defense are people paid by Google to care.' 5 Google faces a potential breakup of its business in the search trial. AP 'If Google is broken up, it will be a win for our digital economy that will lead to lower prices and more choices for consumers,' Haworth added. Aside from a forced divestment of Chrome, the DOJ wants Google to share its search data with rivals. The agency has also asked Mehta to consider the potential impact of Google's massive investments in AI-powered search when crafting any remedies. Elsewhere, the feds want Google to be barred from paying billions to companies like Apple to ensure its search engine is set as the default option on most smartphones. They also propose a forced divestiture of Google's Android software if initial remedies prove ineffective. 5 Google, led by CEO Sundar Pichai, is fighting to avoid a forced divestiture of Chrome. Getty Images 'We've long said the DOJ's proposals go miles beyond the Court's decision,' a Google spokesperson said in a statement. 'We appreciate that a wide range of experts, academics and businesses agree.' An amicus brief – also known as a 'friend of the court' brief – generally includes information that interested third parties want to flag for the judge's consideration before reaching a verdict. In a filing, the brief's coauthors noted that they were not paid by any outside party and that no outside party had contributed to the writing. Contributors included Tad Lipsky, who heads up the competition advocacy program at George Mason University's Global Antitrust Institute – which has received millions in funding from Google and other Big Tech firms while frequently arguing for a light touch on antitrust enforcement. Sims retired as a partner at law firm Jones Day in 2016. In July 2024, Jones Day successfully secured dismissal of a class-action suit accusing Google of antitrust violations tied to its Maps service. 5 Google faced criticism for destroying employee chat logs that it had been ordered to preserve. REUTERS Last August, Sims raised eyebrows when he argued that Mehta was 'silly' for criticizing Google over its deletion of employee chat logs during the DOJ's search trial – in violation of court orders to preserve evidence. 'No firm has an obligation to create a paper trail for people or entities that may want to attack it,' Sims wrote on X. 'If anything, it has a fiduciary obligation to do just the opposite.' Tom is a former partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius who represented Google against 'Fortnite' maker Epic Games's antitrust lawsuit until his retirement in July 2022. Google eventually lost the suit in a bombshell ruling that has major implications for its 'Google Play' app store. Richard Parker previously represented Apple in the ebooks case bought the DOJ and currently works at Milbank Tweed, a firm that advised Google in the search trial and helped argue its ongoing appeal of the Epic Games verdict. The brief notes that Parker contributed in 'his personal capacity' and had 'not worked for Google on this matter or any other matter.' 5 US District Judge Amit Mehta is pictured. AFP/Getty Images Terry Calvani worked law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer from 2005 to 2019 – a period of time in which the firm served as an outside counsel for Google in several lawsuits. From 2020 to 2025, Calvini was a senior adviser at strategic communications firm Brunswick Group, which counts Google as a client. Several enforcers who backed the amicus brief, including Sims and Lipsky, are listed as authors for Truth on the Market – a competition law-focused blog with close ties to the Big Tech-funded International Center for Law and Economics. Jon Neuchterlein is a nonresident senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, which acknowledges on its website that it has received from donations from the likes of Google, Amazon, and Apple, among other tech firms. 5 Judge Mehta is expected to rule on potential remedies by August. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia From 2015 to 2024, Neuchterlein was a partner at the law firm Sidley Austin. During his tenure, the firm counted Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Intel among its clients. In their brief, the antitrust lawyers urged Mehta to take 'caution' when considering two elements of the DOJ's proposal – the forced Chrome divestiture and the search data-sharing requirement – to avoid overstepping the bounds of antitrust law. 'Antitrust remedies in a monopoly maintenance case are intended to terminate the unlawful conduct and prevent its recurrence, and remediate proven harm to competition caused by the illegal conduct,' the brief said. The lawyers added that remedies that 'further than that or that are not narrowly designed to achieve those goals can undermine the purpose of the antitrust laws by inhibiting the very robust competition that those laws are intended to promote.'
