Trump Justice Department not expected to appoint outsider as special counsel, source says
The Justice Department is not expected to appoint an outsider to serve as special counsel to handle politically sensitive criminal investigations, but will likely deputize a US Attorney to handle such matters if the need arises, according to a source familiar with the strategy.
On Friday, President Donald Trump once again called for a special prosecutor to investigate former President Joe Biden and aired unfounded claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
'A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!' he wrote on Truth Social.
The president has repeatedly called for a special counsel to investigate his predecessor over a number of issues.
'The whole purpose of the special counsel regime is to appoint a politically neutral outsider who can bring independence and credibility to a case,' said Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst and author of a forthcoming book on the history of special counsels and independent prosecutions. 'To choose a Trump-appointed US Attorney will, at a minimum, create the appearance that that person is biased in favor of Trump and his political agenda.'
The Justice Department is already investigating some of Biden's actions while in office as part of its 'Weaponization Working Group.'
On her first day in office, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo establishing the group, which would focus on examining the state and federal investigations into Trump as well as the prosecutions related to the US Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, and other right-wing priorities.
Ed Martin, who failed to secure confirmation as US Attorney for Washington, DC, now oversees that effort, which has expanded to include subjects such as pardons issued by former President Joe Biden and other aspects of his administration.
CNN previously reported that Martin sent a letter to the National Archives requesting information about White House operations under the Biden administration. He is also seeking information related to Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the code name for the investigation into links between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.
It is expected that if the department deems that if any of these matters need to be escalated to a full-blown criminal investigation – that work will be outsourced to a US Attorney. The administration currently does not have any Senate-confirmed US Attorneys, but they do have nominees working in offices across the country.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.
The special counsel role was created through federal regulation to be used when there are conflicts of interest for the Department handling an investigation and it 'would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel.'
There have been several notable special counsels in the past few years, including Robert Mueller who was appointed by then-deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate the Russian government's interference with the 2016 presidential election. Mueller had previously served as the FBI director from 2001 to 2013.
Trump has repeated railed against special counsels. In Mueller's final report, Trump is quoted saying, 'Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels, it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.'
Jack Smith was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump for allegedly interfering with the 2020 election and the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, and for his allegedly mishandling of classified documents. Smith had also previously served as a federal prosecutor and was working at The Hague at the time he was tapped for this position.
In July 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon, who oversaw Trump's classified documents case, ruled that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause, which determines how the federal government is funded.
Cannon also said that Smith was unlawfully appointed by Garland. 'For more than 18 months, Special Counsel Smith's investigation and prosecution has been financed by substantial funds drawn from the Treasury without statutory authorization, and to try to rewrite history at this point seems near impossible,' Cannon wrote when she dismissed the case.
Smith appealed the controversial ruling, but after Trump was reelected, he withdrew both cases against the president-elect.
The nature of special counsels has evolved over time – under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Congress allowed for appointment of 'special prosecutors,' which later became known as 'independent counsels.' These individuals were appointed by specially selected three-judge panel and were outside-government appointees.
Ultimately, the law expired in 1999 after much debate about the cost and scope of special prosecutors, especially after the Kenneth Starr-led investigation of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
When the law expired, the Justice Department created a new regulation that allowed the Attorney General to appoint a 'special counsel' from outside the federal government. The Justice Department determined that special counsels would be appointed for investigations that would have too much conflict of interest to operate under normal agency guidelines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
19 minutes ago
- UPI
NC governor vetoes permit-less concealed carry, ICE cooperation
1 of 2 | Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes an arrest in Californa. North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein voted legislation that would have required law enforcement to coordinate operations with immigration officers. Photo by ICE/Flickr June 21 (UPI) -- North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein vetoed a bill to require state law enforcement to work more closely with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in addition to another that would allow permit-less concealed carry of firearms. The Democratic governor on Friday announced vetoes of the legislation, which had been approved by both legislative chambers. Stein said the state is already stretched to assist federal officers. "My oath of office requires that I uphold the Constitution of the United States," Stein said. "Therefore, I cannot sign this bill because it would require sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released. He noted the federeal Fourth Circuit "is clear that local law enforcement officers cannot keep people in custody solely based on a suspected immigration violation." Stein said he also wants offenders to be held accountable. "Let me be clear, anyone who commits a serious crime in North Carolina must be prosecuted and held accountable regardless of their immigration status." He said he supports the bills' efforts to require sheriffs to contact federal immigration authorities about people in their custody charged with dangerous crimes, including sexual battery, armed robbery, arson, assault on public officials and court personnel. The vetoes were supported by Guilford County Sheriff Danny Rogers, Forsyth County Sheriff Bobby Kimbrough and Mecklenburg County Sheriff Gary McFadden. Republicans blasted the decision by the governor, who was elected in November. "Gov. Stein proved where his allegiances are," state Senate Leader Phil Berger posted on X. "He'd rather prioritize his far-left donors and their dangerous open-border policies over the citizens of North Carolina who are desperately pleading for us to put an end to the illegal immigration crisis. I look forward to the Senate overriding his veto." Stein also vetoed a bill that would have allowed permitless concealed carry in North Carolina. "This bill makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership," Stein said. "The bill eliminates training requirements associated with concealed carry permits and reduces the age to carry a concealed weapon from 21 to 18 years old. "We can and should protect the right to bear arms without recklessly endangering law enforcement officers and our people." Berger criticized the veto of this bill. "Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn't have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights," the Senate leader said. "It's past time for us to join the majority of states that recognize Constitutional Carry. I look forward to the Senate overriding Gov. Stein's veto." To override a veto, three-fifths of the House and Senate must approve the bills. In the latest election, Democrats broke the Republican supermajority in the House by gaining one seat. The GOP has a one-vote supermajority in the Senate.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Cracking heads': Trump, DOJ moves signal end of reforms after George Floyd movement
When George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer five blocks from her home, Nichole Subola visited the site of his death again and again, trying to wrap her mind around it. Police reform seemed within reach as she watched the global impact of the protests. The floral arrangements, drawings and signs filled the streets in a place that came to be known as "George Floyd Square." Five years later, Subola, 59, isn't sure if local police will follow through on their commitment now that the Trump administration is abandoning federal consent decrees in cities that promised real change in training and hiring practices. More: An officer partially blinded a teen amid George Floyd protests. Was force excessive? "There's a consensus here that the police need to do better, but it's so hard to erase what happened viscerally," she said. "There's just no trust in the police, not for me and my community, and other parts of the city, there just isn't. I don't think it was there to begin with." Millions poured into the country's streets demanding systemic change in the wake of Floyd's murder on Memorial Day − coupled with the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police two months prior. Many believed America was turning a corner in terms of police accountability. Even Trump, who rarely criticized police action, called Floyd's death a "very sad event" in a May 27, 2020 tweet. "Justice will be served," he said. Much of that was snatched away in the years that followed, most notably in 2021 when Congress failed to pass sweeping reform package dubbed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. During Biden's presidency, federal investigators started a dozen "pattern or practice" probes into police departments across the nation, including Phoenix, Trenton and Memphis. None yielded any court-binding consent decrees, however, and then came the largest setback of all: Donald Trump returning to the White House. The president's team has now swung the pendulum in the opposite direction from five years ago, even attempting to rescind findings of constitutional violations in the cities where Floyd and Taylor lost their lives. Experts and voters on both sides of the debate say the U.S. Justice Department's decision on May 21 establishes a new political order for the country's ongoing police accountability debate, including the possibility of pardoning officers convicted by federal prosecutors during the Biden years. Among Trump's allies in the law enforcement ranks, there are cheers among those who argue consent decrees micromanage departments and were overused by the previous administration. Police reforms are better handled by local elected leaders and residents, who know their public safety needs better than Washington, said Jason Johnson, president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, which supports officers who are prosecuted or fired for actions while in the line of duty. "It should be a patchwork," he said. "Law enforcement is local, so the police in Minneapolis should conduct themselves in the way the citizens of Minneapolis want." But those on the other side of the fence assert the president is giving police officers a green light to do as they please. Jim Mulvaney, an adjunct professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who previously served as deputy commissioner of New York state's human rights division, points out Trump often encouraged law enforcement to be rougher on certain suspects during the campaign. "He signaled back then that hard-handed law enforcement was what he wanted," he said. "Not obeying the Constitution, but cracking heads." Pulling back from those consent decrees coincides with a larger sea change at the Justice Department, which has reportedly lost 70% of its civil rights division lawyers since January. Administration officials have also shifted the division's focus toward enforcing the president's executive orders, such as combating antisemitism in higher education, ending alleged radical indoctrination in public schools and defending women's rights from "gender ideology extremism" in athletics and other areas. Up until the DOJ's announcement this month, Mulvaney said there has been a long-held presumption that the federal government would keep local law enforcement in check. "They've now been told, don't worry about it. And I think that that's only going to encourage bad behavior and at a very high cost," he said. Many activists and voters who spoke with USA TODAY echoed those concerns, but emphasized they aren't giving up on racial equality or seeking changes to law enforcement. Instead of lobbying Congress or engaging in large acts of civil disobedience, different forms of resistance are being spotlighted. "The solutions have never come from the system; they always came from people in the community. So I think this could be an opportunity to build more of that energy if we use it properly," said Rodney Salomon, 37, of Neptune Township, N.J., co-founder of KYDS, Konscious Youth Development & Service, a nonprofit that focuses on transforming communities through mindfulness, restorative practices and youth leadership. Others point to seeking change through economic actions like the Black-church led boycott of Target after the retail giant quashed its diversity initiatives. The company's first-quarter sales fell 3.8%, compared to analysts' estimates of a 1.08% decline. They are looking to find innovative ways to protect residents through technology, such as Selwyn Jones, a Floyd relative who developed the MYTH app, which would send out a panic alert to a person's emergency contacts when they're involved in a police interaction in real time. Kay Harris, 72, who lived in Asbury Park, N.J., through the city's race riots in the 1960s, said federal oversight is critical, but balancing the scales may have to come from other branches of government, such as the courts. "We cannot depend on the local precincts to do it themselves. I mean that is why we are in the position we are in right now," she said. "That doesn't mean that all police officers are unethical, but there are just too many rogue police officers who do just what they want." Asbury Park, for instance, settled at least five suits in roughly a decade involving allegations of racial discrimination. The victims were awarded $1.9 million in defense and settlement costs, city officials say. "If (Trump) is the law and order president, then he should ensure that law and order is followed appropriately," Harris said. "He is trying to roll things back to the 1950s." The Trump administration's decision to walk back reform efforts came days before the fifth anniversary of Floyd's murder on May 25, 2020. That timing wasn't lost on Justin Thamert, of Foley, Minnesota, a town about 65 miles north of Minneapolis, who said emotions remain raw. "I don't think anybody's gotten over it," he said. The 34-year-old mechanic, who voted for Trump last fall, said the Biden administration turned its back on law enforcement and made officers feel afraid to do their jobs. But he isn't sure federal authorities should abandon reform efforts in Minneapolis, which include minimizing the need to use force; investigating allegations of employee misconduct; and providing confidential mental health wellness services to officers and other public safety personnel. "I wouldn't shut the door," Thamert said. "I think (Minneapolis) will need help. I don't agree with them completely pulling out." Leaders in the cities where Taylor and Floyd died have been quick to pledge, regardless of the Trump administration's reversal, that they will seek to continue implementing changes to their law enforcement operations. Minneapolis was "making more progress towards the reforms" than most other municipalities in the country under a consent decree, Mayor Jacob Frey noted, citing a recently released independent evaluator's report. The report found the department had reduced its backlog of use-of-force cases under review from more than 1,100 to about 400 in the last six months. "The people in this city have demanded change for years and we're going to make sure we get this done," Frey told USA TODAY. Like many local officials, Frey, a Democrat, who is seeking reelection this year, has walked a political tightrope in the wake of controversial police encounters. He was criticized by Trump as a "very weak radical left mayor" in 2020 for his handling of the unrest that engulfed the city, but was slammed by left-leaning activists for opposing a 2021 ballot initiative that sought radical change and completely overhaul the police department with a new public safety agency. The plan would have shifted oversight from the mayor's office to the city council. However, 56% of voters rejected that idea. Frey said Minneapolis is standing by the court-ordered reforms, emphasizing that homicides and shootings are down. The city is rolling out new use-of-force measures, improving community engagement and making sure its work is transparent and accountable, he said. "So Donald Trump can do whatever he wants," Frey continued. "The bottom line is, regardless of what the White House does, we are moving forward, anyway." Similarly, Louisville officials immediately used the DOJ's decision to unveil a 214-page plan mirroring similar goals set by the Biden administration. It calls for hiring an independent monitor for up to five years who will help develop a plan covering use of force, community policing, misconduct investigations and behavioral health response. "We as a city are committed to reform," said Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg, a Democrat seeking reelection next year, at a May 21 press conference. There are some omissions in Louisville's new plan, however. The trimmed-down local plan removed a line about the use of Tasers that mandated officers learn about "the risks to persons exhibiting signs of mental illness, substance use, or experiencing behavioral health crisis," according to the Courier-Journal, part of the USA TODAY Network. Antonio Brown, 39, participated in the Louisville protests almost daily in the summer of 2020. He said his faith in federally supported police reforms waned after Trump was reelected. "I'm not surprised by what Trump's administration is doing, but I do wonder what our mayor is going to do, because he ran on change," Brown said. Other city officials and local activists have expressed skepticism about Greenberg, who contested some findings in the original 2023 federal report that determined the Louisville police department "unlawfully discriminates against Black people in its enforcement activities." Critics point out that the independent monitor's contract under the local plan is only renewable for up to five years, for instance. Greenberg also hasn't committed to rehiring the city's inspector general, who is charged with examining police misconduct and has butted heads with Louisville police since 2021. "It's definitely going to get worse if we don't see any change," said Brown, a machine operator at a local manufacturing company. "This is why we came outside –for reform. So if we don't get reform... I'm not going back in." As advocates on both sides of the police accountability debate decipher what Trump's about-face means for those communities, some are now focusing on what his administration might do next as allies seek to redefine the summer of 2020. Conservative activists have publicly lobbied for the president to pardon Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer convicted of Floyd's murder. Trump previously said that he wasn't considering pardoning Chauvin. But, Minneapolis officials said they are prepared for an emergency response with state and federal authorities while calming the waters. Frey pointed out, for example, that even if Chauvin were to be pardoned by Trump from his 21-year federal sentence, that would not free the former officer for his 22-year state sentence for second- and third-degree murder. By law, Trump doesn't have the power to pardon state sentences. In recent weeks, Trump's suppoters have publicly called for the same reprieve to be extended to former Louisville police detective Brett Hankinson, one of three officers who raided Taylor's apartment in 2020. He faces a life sentence after being found guilty last fall by a federal jury of violating the 26-year-old ER technician's civil rights. Right-leaning advocates noted Hankison was acquitted on state charges in 2022, and spotlight that no one was injured as a result of his gunfire on the night Taylor was shot to death. "Hankison should be completely (absolved) of any wrongdoing," Brandon Tatum, a former Arizona police officer turned YouTube political commentator, told his roughly 1.6 million Instagram followers on May 14. Tatum argued Hankinson is more deserving of a pardon than Chauvin, adding that he reached out to leaders in Congress to contact the White House on behalf of the former Louisville officer. Johnson, of the law enforcement defense fund, has called on the Trump administration to take a closer look at other cases they describe as "politically motivated," including a 2023 case involving a Massachusetts police sergeant facing federal charges for filing a false report. He said his group has not actively advocated for Hankinson's pardon, but that it does, "believe he is a good candidate for clemency." Trump has already wielded his executive authority in such a manner during his first week in office when he pardoned two Washington, D.C. police officers convicted last fall in the death of 20-year-old Karon Hylton-Brown, who was riding a moped on a sidewalk without a helmet when he ignored instructions to stop. Jerrod Moore, 44, an Atlanta construction inspector, said federal authorities investigating these type of case could have done more to weed out bad officers. He said changes coming from the national level have proven to be unreliable, and that he wouldn't be surprised if Trump pardoned more police officers convicted of violating people's constitutional rights in the coming years. "He's very selective about who he wants to pardon, and if he does, it will be an officer in one of the more egregious crimes," Moore said. "It's very clear who his target audience is. Look who he's pardoned already." Contributing: Charles Daye, Stephanie Kuzydym, Josh Wood, Keely Doll, Marc Ramirez, USA TODAY Network This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump, DOJ moves signal shift for police accountability after Floyd
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's LA National Guard orders draw comparisons to Jan. 6
WASHINGTON – One group was considered a rampaging mob whose members bear-sprayed and beat police officers while breaking into the seat of American democracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power. The other was a more dispersed and uncoordinated group of violent agitators burning empty cars, looting and throwing rocks at police. In the first incident, the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, then-President Donald Trump never called in the National Guard, despite pleas from local officials and some congressional lawmakers. They said troops were needed to prevent further violence from an angry mob that Trump himself had riled up to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. In the second case, which is still ongoing, Trump not only deployed the California National Guard over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom, he also called in 700 active duty Marines to quell anti-ICE protests that erupted in Los Angeles over aggressive immigration raids. The contrast between Trump's actions in 2021, when the U.S. Capitol was overrun by a violent mob, and this month in Los Angeles is proof, his critics say, the president is using the U.S. military for political purposes. But some supporters of the president say the more appropriate comparison isn't with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, but the riots and disturbances that rocked American cities in the summer of 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd. The Floyd protests showed "you've got to put out small fires before they turn into forest fires,' Jay Town, who served as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama during Trump's first administration, told USA TODAY. Trump said the troops were needed in Los Angeles to put down a 'form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." The protests in Los Angeles are seen as more tepid compared to the Jan. 6 riots in terms of constituting a rebellion or threat to the federal government, according to Newsom, Democratic lawmakers, and legal experts. They accuse Trump − who was impeached and criminally indicted over Jan. 6, though the charges were dropped after his reelection − of deploying soldiers to serve his own political ends. "There was not plausibly a rebellion in Los Angeles, under any reasonable interpretation of the term," said Chris Mirasola, a law professor at the University of Houston and a former Department of Defense legal advisor. Critics saw a cracked mirror image of Jan. 6 in Trump's mobilization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. 'This is a reverse of Jan. 6, where Trump allowed his most violent supporters to attack the Capitol on his behalf," Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., told USA TODAY, "and here he is sending in federal troops to provoke his opponents to attack them.' "In both instances, his aim is chaos,' Swalwell said. Four people died during the Jan. 6 assault on Congress and five police officers died in its aftermath − one from a stroke the following day and four by suicide. About 140 other law enforcement officers were injured. More than 1,575 people were charged in connection with Jan. 6, ranging from misdemeanors such as trespassing to felonies such as assaulting police officers and seditious conspiracy. At least 600 were charged with the felony of assaulting or impeding law enforcement, according to the Police Executive Research Forum. Damages for Jan. 6 surpassed $2.7 billion, according to an investigation by Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In the current case, at least nine LAPD officers and an unknown number of protesters have been hurt, with most sustaining minor injuries. The Los Angeles Police Department has arrested more than 500 people in eight days of protests, the majority of them on minor charges such as failure to disperse or not obeying a nighttime curfew. Two were charged with throwing firebombs, authorities said on June 11. Though the extent of damage from the current LA protests are unknown, it is far less significant than on Jan. 6, Democratic lawmakers and city and state officials say. Trump and other administration officials repeatedly have said there's no comparison between Jan. 6 and the Los Angeles violence, and that California and LA officials forced the President's hand by failing to quell the growing protests. 'Generations of Army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion,' Trump told Army soldiers in a June 10 speech at Fort Bragg, N.C. 'As commander in chief, I will not let that happen.' Trump didn't make any such pronouncements four years ago as a stunned nation watched the Capitol attack unfold, with organized groups including the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia taking leading roles. In 2021, Trump spent 187 minutes watching the Capitol assault on TV, while mobs ransacked Congressional offices and hunted for Democratic lawmakers and even his own vice president, Mike Pence, according to a House committee investigating the attack. Hours later, only after the crowd began dispersing, Trump posted a video on social media at 4:17 p.m.: 'Go home. We love you, you're very special.' It wasn't until 5:20 p.m. on Jan. 6 that the first National Guard troops arrived at the Capitol, while police secured the complex. 'In a bipartisan way, on Jan. 6 − with violence against the Constitution, against the Congress and against the United States Capitol − we begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard,' former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., told reporters. 'He would not do it.' 'And yet, in a contra-constitutional way, he has sent the National Guard into California,' Pelosi said on June 10. 'Something is very wrong with this picture." On June 13, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted a federal judge's order blocking Trump's Guard mobilization in Los Angeles. Supporters of Trump's National Guard call-out in California point to a different set of disturbances to justify his actions. Town, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2017 to a 2020 and a former Marine, described a more complex set of circumstances than Pelosi. He cited statements by Steven Sund, the U.S. Capitol Police chief at the time, that he begged for National Guard assistance on Jan. 6 but that it was congressional officials who reported to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who delayed approval. More: Amid LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz over 2020 George Floyd riots Town said the appropriate comparison isn't with Jan. 6, but the National Guard deployments in 2020 during riots following the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis. 'What we learned in 2020, as a guy who was in office then, is that you've got to put out small fires before they turn into forest fires,' Town told USA TODAY. "President Trump is not going to let what happened under the failed local and state leadership in Minneapolis and Seattle and so many other places happen again.' On June 17, as he returned to Washington from the Group of Seven summit in Canada, Trump wrote on Truth Social: "If I didn't put the National Guard into Los Angeles, the place would be burned down to the ground right now." On his first day back in office in 2025, Trump pardoned all but 14 of the approximately 1,270 convicted Jan. 6 rioters. He and Cabinet members including Attorney General Pam Bondi say they will prosecute anyone who even touches a law enforcement official in Los Angeles to the fullest extent of the law. Asked if that was hypocritical in light of Trump's Jan. 6 pardons, Bondi said, "Well, this is very different." "These are people out there hurting people in California right now,' Bondi said in an on-camera gaggle with reporters at the White House. 'This is ongoing." Newsom, who is suing Trump over the Marines and Guardsmen in Los Angeles, disagreed. "Trump, he's not opposed to lawlessness and violence, as long as it serves him,' Newsom said. 'What more evidence do we need than Jan. 6?" This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump's LA National Guard orders draw comparisons to Jan. 6
