U.S. Subpoenas Governor Who Said He Would House Migrant at His Home
Mr. Murphy said in February that he was prepared to house a woman whose immigration status was unclear at his family's home in Middletown. F.B.I. agents have since sought to interview at least four witnesses in connection with the comments, two of the people said, with one adding that the governor had been subpoenaed but not questioned.
Ms. Habba, the interim U.S. attorney in New Jersey, is a former personal lawyer for President Trump. She previously announced that she was directing prosecutors in her office to investigate the governor and New Jersey's attorney general, Matthew J. Platkin, in connection with the state's immigration policies.
Two of the people with knowledge of the investigation involving Mr. Murphy's comments indicated that it was separate from any Justice Department inquiry related to New Jersey's so-called sanctuary policy, which has been upheld by a federal appeals court. There has been no public sign of that inquiry moving forward.
Mr. Murphy is one of at least four Democratic officials to become entangled in investigations pursued by Ms. Habba since she was named to the position in late March.
Mr. Murphy made the remarks during a freewheeling discussion at a New Jersey college, telling an audience there that there was a person in his social orbit 'whose immigration status is not yet at the point that they are trying to get it to.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
a minute ago
- Fast Company
Founder fraud isn't an outlier: it's a design flaw
Another month, another founder accused of fraud. This time it's Christine Hunsicker of CaaStle, indicted on July 18 for allegedly falsifying financial records, misrepresenting profits, and continuing fraud even after her removal by the board. According to reports, before meeting with an audit firm, she searched online for the terms 'fraud,' 'created an audit firm fake,' and 'JP morgan 4m records faked'—an apparent reference to fraud charges related to yet another disgraced founder, Charlie Javice of Frank. These incidents are no longer outliers. They're becoming a pattern, and the startup world has yet to confront what that the pattern reveals: The startup ecosystem is designed to encourage deception. Risk-taking and self-confidence We all know that most founders share a penchant for risk-taking and a healthy sense of self-confidence. But couple these characteristics with the relentless assault of pressures that constitute daily startup life, and you have a recipe for trouble. Risk-taking slips into recklessness, and confidence metastasizes into outright narcissism. Lying is the norm. Particularly during the early stages, a 'Growth at All Costs' imperative means that startups feel obliged to pursue aggressive growth to secure high valuations and attract continuous investment rounds. This pressure can lead founders to inflate metrics, fabricate success, or conceal failures to maintain investor confidence. Sam Bankman-Fried of FTX secretly transferred customer funds to his trading firm, Alameda Research, concealing these movements and misleading stakeholders. From optimism to deception A 'Fake It Till You Make It' culture means that what starts as harmless optimism can easily escalate into deliberate deception. Founders initially omit negative details, then progressively falsify data to uphold illusions of success. Nikola founder Trevor Milton exaggerated product capabilities, even staging videos of a nonoperational electric truck rolling down a hill. The brutal demands of fundraising result in constant pressure to secure funding and maintain operational cash flow, which often pushes founders to compromise ethically. The necessity to present a highly favorable narrative to investors encourages fraudulent embellishments. Combined with a lack of oversight and governance, especially in early-stage startups, this leaves founders unchecked, increasing opportunities for fraud. Early investors and boards often fail to provide rigorous oversight due to limited motivation or expertise. A gradual process White-collar fraud is always a gradual process. No one jumps straight into the deep end of the criminality pool. Law enforcement officials have a '10:10:80' rule of thumb when it comes to white-collar fraud: 10% of people would never commit fraud, 10% of people are actively seeking out opportunities to commit fraud, and 80% of people have the potential to commit fraud if the timing and circumstances are right. The vast majority of these founders probably started in the 80%, along with most of the rest of us. It often begins with minor embellishments aimed at securing initial investment. Successful deception attracts further funding, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. But as the discrepancies between reality and claims widen, founders face intensified pressure to maintain their narratives, resorting to increasingly severe fraud to conceal earlier lies. Witness Christine Hunsicker's continued deception even after her board had essentially kicked her out of her company. Seismic consequences The consequences of all this founder misbehavior can be cataclysmic. They extend well beyond the direct financial losses to investors. Broader investor confidence deteriorates, leading to reduced funding availability for legitimate startups. Employees suffer job losses, reputational damage, and psychological distress. Customers can experience direct harm, as in Theranos's false medical test results. The broader innovation ecosystem becomes risk-averse, slowing innovation due to increased regulatory scrutiny and cautious investment behaviors. Potential time bombs To mitigate this deadly cocktail of ego and pressure, we first need to understand that all founders are potential time bombs: the same traits that help them secure money, talent, and press are the ones that can eventually lead to their undoing. The old method was pretty straightforward: fire the founder, and replace them with a manager. But that only leads to zombie companies that stifle innovation in the crib. Startup founders are constantly being gaslit. They're being flattered as geniuses and world-changers on a daily basis. Many of their direct reports are sharp, canny careerists who only want to share good news. It's easy to see how people can lose perspective and start believing their own hype within the 'emperor's new clothes' environment of a startup. These people need perspective in order to curb the worst tendencies of startup culture. Every founder should cultivate a 'star chamber' of mentors who are removed from the everyday persecutions of the startup in question (perhaps an older CEO, or a colleague from an accelerator program, or a startup blogger you admire). They need advice from people whom I call 'models of values': transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership. Many boards are sadly hopeless at this, because they're complicit in the success (at all costs) of the startup. Oversight and accountability On the stick side of the carrot and stick approach, however, these people also need oversight and accountability. Their boards and investors must actively engage in governance roles, monitoring company practices and demanding transparency. They need to ensure financial transparency and operational integrity through audits and detailed reference checks. To prevent the next Hunsicker, Javice, Bankman-Fried, or Holmes, we need to confront the cultural rot at the core of startup life. We still need ambitious entrepreneurs to drive innovation, but not within a system that rewards deception and punishes transparency. Unless we change the rules of the game—by rethinking incentives, strengthening oversight, and investing in founder development—we'll keep producing brilliant visionaries who become cautionary tales.
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
‘Didn't I say not?': Judge reads verdict incorrectly
An Atlanta judge caused courtroom drama when he read out an incorrect guilty verdict. Judge Henry M. Newkirk quickly corrected himself after there were gasps from the jury. The defendant, Alton Oliver, was accused of shooting and killing off-duty police officer in December 2022, according to CNN affiliate WSB. The jury found him not guilty on all counts. Oliver's attorney told CNN that "shock and disbelief are the first two words that come to mind."
Washington Post
2 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The White House is making the homeless crisis worse
Jacob Fuller is an organizer and policy writer based in Philadelphia. In asserting control over the D.C. police force and deploying National Guard troops and federal agents, President Donald Trump has named removing homeless encampments as a top priority. If only he brought this level of urgency to preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place. Over the past decade, the number of homeless individuals has increased each year, at a rate that has only accelerated. Last year, rates jumped by 18 percent, totaling 771,480 unhoused individuals in the United States. And the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Cuts to health care and food programs, soaring housing costs, and newer proposals by the Trump administration to pare back housing assistance all threaten to worsen homelessness — not just in Washington, but around the country. For most individuals and families, homelessness is a temporary situation — typically resolved within weeks or days. Programs to prevent and quickly resolve housing crises matter, as prolonged experiences with homelessness can make individual cases even harder to address. Homelessness in the United States might feel like an intractable problem, but it has not always been on an upward trajectory. Following the 2008 financial crash that led to mass unemployment and housing insecurity, President Barack Obama signed the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act into law. Among its many features, it authorized $2.2 billion for programs focused on quickly putting people back into homes and keeping at-risk people from sliding into homelessness in the first place. The economy was hit hard by the recession, but from 2010 to 2016, homelessness decreased yearly, ultimately achieving a 15 percent reduction nationally, with veteran homelessness cut in half. Federally backed housing initiatives were widely credited with helping drive the trend. These gains were already fragile and contingent on appropriate funding levels for effective programs, but the spread of covid-19 kicked the problem into high gear. As housing costs skyrocketed and inflation soared, rates of homelessness followed, especially as pandemic-era aid ran out. Housing costs remain at record levels, and rates of consumer debt have soared, cutting the ability of millions to save money for a crisis. Now, only months into the second Trump administration, what was already a crisis shows signs of developing into a total calamity. In budget recommendations for 2026, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed slashing federal rental assistance by 40 percent, functionally eliminating voucher programs and a two-year time limit on federal rental assistance, putting as many as 1.4 million Americans at risk of losing their homes. In my conversations with experts working in homeless services across the nation, it's clear we are shockingly unprepared for what's coming. 'Right now, we're in pretty terrifying times in terms of not knowing what's going to happen to our federal grants,' said Haven Wheelock, a harm-reduction manager at the Oregon-based nonprofit Outside In. And though the state's funding might theoretically help fill in the gaps, its legislature is bracing for cuts to Medicaid that will further strain budgets. Some of these changes might not show up in federal statistics at first glance. According to Dennis Culhane, professor of social policy at the University of Pennsylvania, a large degree of the observed 2024 increase in homelessness was driven by Republican governors shipping migrants to sanctuary cities that moved them into homeless shelters before they could be transitioned to other housing. With the migrant crisis receding, he predicted, those numbers will drop. But chronic homelessness — extended periods of homelessness typically defined as lasting a year or longer — has gone up significantly and is more at risk. From 2020 to 2024, the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness increased by 38 percent, and getting them back into homes is significantly harder than resolving temporary or at-risk cases. Prolonged homelessness can often lead to drug use, which prevents access to services that require sobriety to qualify and increases the likelihood of traumatic brain injuries that could impact an individual's ability to receive care. Though these measures would probably devastate individuals at risk of homelessness, they would also be catastrophic to the communities where they live. In cities, homelessness has been shown to contribute to decreased foot traffic to downtown areas where it's perceived to be high, might decrease ridership of public transportation, and can threaten public health and safety. People in cities know what it's like to see a sudden increase in people experiencing mental health and substance crises, and how even small numbers of unhoused people can change the perception of a neighborhood. 'When they begin self-medicating, they begin this cycle where they may end up in an unstable space, both mentally and environmentally, [and] that will negatively impact the entire community as a whole,' said Sarah Laurel, executive director at Philadelphia-based nonprofit Savage Sisters. She expressed concern for those currently in her recovery program because getting kicked off Medicaid will mean many might go without crucial medication. We don't have to let this happen — even modest investments can help make a difference. New visions such as the pro-housing 'abundance' movement, as well as a rise in candidates making affordability a central issue, present possibilities for a brighter future with more accessible routes to renting or owning a home. But investment in new and affordable housing is only one part of the picture. To help ensure that individuals who find themselves displaced can quickly bounce back, government assistance programs such as 'housing first' strategies, rental aid and vouchers must be renewed and expanded.
