Trump nominates Jeanine Pirro for full term as DC's top federal prosecutor
Her nomination for a four-year term has been sent to the Senate, the release says.
She was named to the position on an interim basis last month after Trump's first pick, Ed Martin, faced what appeared to be insurmountable pushback from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Pirro, a longtime Trump ally, is a former judge and district attorney for Westchester County in New York. Until being tapped by Trump, she had not held a position in the justice system since 2005, when she left the district attorney's office and began her career on television.
CNN's KFile on Monday reviewed Pirro's radio shows and found that she has repeatedly endorsed criminal investigations into Trump's perceived political enemies, including federal prosecutors, local officials and judges involved in his various legal cases.
In addition to her attacks on federal law enforcement and the judiciary, Pirro has spent years promoting false and inflammatory claims. She downplayed the January 6 violence as a political 'narrative,' calling for a Capitol Police officer and DOJ officials to be investigated.
Pirro also boosted unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen and was one of several hosts named in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox News. The lawsuit was later settled by Fox News for more than $787 million.
With her nomination, Pirro will have to provide the Senate with a detailed disclosure of every media appearance she's made, which would include hundreds of hours of public comments on TV and the radio over the years.
That disclosure process is what ultimately helped sink Martin's nomination, which was withdrawn last month after he failed to disclose hundreds of his own media appearances, including those that undercut his disavowal of an alleged Nazi sympathizer he had repeatedly praised and interviewed. Trump later announced that Martin would move to the Department of Justice as the director of the Weaponization Working Group, as well as associate deputy attorney general and pardon attorney.
CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz, Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: 4 possible outcomes of a gerrymandering battle royale
The American political system has for years transformed into a more partisan, brutalized and norm-scorning version of itself. The old rules are increasingly out; whatever-it-takes is increasingly in. Few developments epitomize that transformation like the burgeoning gerrymandering arms race. Texas Republicans' recent move to redraw the state's congressional districts in the middle of the decade has little precedent, and for once nobody is pretending this is about anything other than raw politics. Republicans just want to make it harder for Democrats to flip a closely divided US House in 2026. A Texas Republican state representative told CNN the GOP is doing this 'because it's good for our party.' President Donald Trump said this week that the GOP is 'entitled to five more seats' in the state. This has led to promises of reprisals from Democrats. They've pledged to respond in kind by playing dirty in states where they could re-draw the maps, like California. Other states – red and blue – are actively considering jumping into the fray with their own map overhauls. All of it raises the prospect of something pretty scary and undemocratic: a continual race to the bottom in which districts are constantly redrawn whenever it suits one party or another, rather than once a decade. It's an inauspicious prospect, to say the least. Lawmakers could find themselves representing and seeking election in ever-changing districts to which they have little personal connection. Those districts' residents could become pawns in a sophisticated and constant game of divide-and-conquer. Adding to the potential chaos is the possibility that the Supreme Court could strike down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act, which has long required states to ensure minority communities are not barred from electing candidates of their choice. So what's to stop the madness? How could this ultimately shake out? Here are a few scenarios. So what if nobody can — or will — stop what's been set in motion? As many as a dozen states could conceivably be mined for partisan advantage by redrawing their maps either before the 2026 or 2028 elections. CNN has looked at some of them, in both red and blue states. Republicans could add as many as five seats in both Texas and in Florida. They could also go for smaller gains in states like Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and South Carolina. Democrats could conceivably try to add five districts in California, a handful in New York and possibly one more seat in states like Illinois and Maryland. That doesn't mean all of these efforts would succeed — or that the politicians in all these states would even try. Many of these states' maps were already extensively gerrymandered just a few years ago, after the 2020 census. Trying to add new seats could mean stretching a party's advantage in certain districts too thin — i.e. creating very marginal advantages — and having it backfire in a good election for the other side. (There is already some speculation this could happen in Texas.) Democrats also face significant legal hurdles in even attempting to re-draw the maps in states like California and New York. But if the gloves come off and this truly becomes a free-for-all, it's possible Republicans could flip between five and 10 seats, thanks to their superior opportunities. That's not an overwhelming shift, but it matters — the margin of victory for House control has been reliably narrow in recent election cycles. If Democrats won five more seats in 2024, they would currently control the chamber. Still, the real impact is arguably in the precedent it sets for a never-ending gerrymandering war. It's often the case that a such a partisan war appears unavoidable — right up until the moment the two sides avoid it. And there's a case to be made that they each have incentives to prevent this from truly getting ugly. One is the risk of the gerrymanders backfiring because the two sides get too aggressive. Another is that members whose own districts could be impacted start to balk. We're beginning to see this with some California and New York Republicans who could be targeted in retaliatory strikes urging Texas Republicans to back off. Even lawmakers who might not lose their seats often don't like having them diluted or extensively redrawn to facilitate their party's gains elsewhere; no one wants to sign up for a tougher reelection bid. It's conceivable that a handful of states pursue these gerrymanders — maybe Texas follows through, and California tries to retaliate — and then it fizzles because lawmakers decide it's just not worth it for such marginal gains. Maybe they even worry about democracy (a quaint thought, sure). Of course, it will be hard to reach such a détente, especially if Trump is intent on extracting whatever advantage he can. The president has demonstrated little regard for such norms or the prerogatives of even his fellow Republicans. And given the GOP clearly has more to gain here, the party has little incentive to back away. Perhaps the most efficient way to avoid this war is for Texas Democrats' walkout to actually, somehow, work. Texas is the canary in the coal mine here, and Democrats appear dug-in to do what they can to stop it. Dozens of lawmakers have left the state to prevent the legislature from getting the quorum it needs to do business. Republicans have issued a series of threats aimed at getting them to return. Those include talking about arrests, fines and a proposal from a Texas Republican facing a primary — Sen. John Cornyn — to enlist the FBI to help in some way. But those threats might not be as serious as Republicans would like to pretend they are. It's not at all clear what role the FBI could even play, for example, in the absence of laws being broken. The name of the game for Democrats is getting to early December. That's when time runs out for Texas Republicans to be able to re-draw the maps in time for the 2026 primaries. Walkouts often don't work, but sometimes they lead to some concessions. Perhaps Republicans begin to worry about the spotlight being cast on their power grab. Perhaps Democrats cut a deal to return that means smaller GOP gains, and the temperature drops. It might be the cleanest resolution. This is probably the most far-fetched resolution in this political day and age. But what if this whole mess leads lawmakers to actually, you know, decide to do something to rein in gerrymandering? (Another quaint thought, we know.) One of those lawmakers who could be targeted by Democratic reprisals, GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, is talking about a bill banning mid-decade redistricting. Another, Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, wants to ban gerrymandering — though it's not at all clear what such a ban would entail, since they would have to define what actually constitutes gerrymanding, or how it would ever get consensus. It's virtually impossible to see either of these proposals becoming law. But perhaps Democrats could band together with blue-state Republicans to threaten a discharge petition to at least force the issue a little bit. It almost surely would never pass, but they could bring some pressure to bear.
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
Minutes before gunfire erupted at Fort Stewart, the shooting suspect texted his family saying ‘I love y'all,' uncle says
Crime Gun violenceFacebookTweetLink Follow 'I just want y'all to know that I love y'all, and I tried my hardest to be the best I could be,' Sgt. Quornelius Samentrio Radford texted his relatives at least 20 minutes before he began shooting at fellow soldiers earlier this week at his military base in Georgia. 'My time is slowly coming to an end. I choose my destiny and my faith. I might not be with my mama, but I'm gonna be in a better place,' the enigmatic group text message read, his uncle, Joe Mitchell, told CNN affiliate WTLV. Radford, 28, wounded five of his peers at Fort Stewart Army base with a personal handgun before he was subdued by other soldiers nearby, authorities have said. All five soldiers are in stable condition, Brig. Gen. John Lubas, the commanding general of the 3rd Infantry Division, said at a news conference Wednesday. 'Please don't talk like that,' one message in response to Radford said. 'Call me, don't talk like this bro,' another said. 'Don't do whatever going on, you gonna be okay,' a different family member wrote. But despite desperate pleas from family members, what unfolded after Radford's messages has left many loved ones with looming questions over what led up to the shooting, his motive, and how someone they know to be a kind and loving family guy could commit such violence. Radford joined the Army in 2018 as an automated logistical specialist and was assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, the US Army said. His role involved handling supplies and warehouse operations and he had not deployed to a combat zone, Lubas, the general said. The native Floridian had been arrested for driving under the influence in May – an arrest his chain of command didn't know about before the incident, Lubas said. Radford had no known behavioral incidents in his military record, according to the general. A day before the shooting, Radford had a disagreement with one of the shooting victims, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the case. It's unclear what the disagreement was about. He followed that coworker to a maintenance area on Wednesday and shot him in the chest before shooting four others. While Radford's motive remains unknown, details about his character and issues he faced in and out of the workplace have emerged from loved ones and former coworkers. His father, Eddie Radford, told The New York Times that he hadn't noticed any unusual behavior from his son recently and didn't know what might have motivated the shooting. He did, however, say his son had complained to the family about racism at Fort Stewart and had been seeking a transfer, according to the Times, which did not publish any specifics. CNN has reached out to Eddie Radford for more information. Fort Stewart declined to comment on the racism allegation and whether Radford had requested a transfer. 'The circumstances that led to the events (on Wednesday) are currently under investigation,' a spokesperson for the 3rd Infantry Division told CNN. As Radford's military career began in 2018, so did relentless bullying over his stutter, two former coworkers told NBC. Sneh Patel, an attorney that represented Radford during his DUI case, also confirmed to CNN that 'he has a stuttering condition,' although he wouldn't disclose much more due to client-attorney privilege, he said. 'He got bullied a lot,' Sgt. Cameron Barrett, who became friends with Radford during an Army training program, told NBC. 'It was very bad to the point where he could barely talk.' People would mock Radford by also pretending to have a stutter, Barrett said, adding the apparent speech impediment was a 'trigger' for Radford, but he endured the treatment by being silent, showing no signs of anger or resentment, Barrett and other soldiers told the network. CNN has reached out to those soldiers for more information. Since the shooting, Radford has been interviewed by the Army Criminal Investigation Division and is now sitting in pretrial confinement as he waits for a charging decision by the Office of the Special Trial Counsel, Lubas said Wednesday afternoon. As for his family, Mitchell told WTLV he's still asking himself questions, even days after the shooting. 'I was just one phone call away,' Mitchell said. 'I wish we could have talked about it, and it would have never happened. But we just leave it in God's hands.' CNN's Danya Gainor and Mark Morales contributed to this report.
Washington Post
3 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Massachusetts sheriff arrested on charges of pressuring cannabis company to over stock purchase
BOSTON — A sheriff in one of Massachusetts' largest counties was charged Friday with allegedly pressuring a Boston-based cannabis firm to sell him stock in the company. Sheriff Steven Tompkins, 67, who oversees about 1,000 employees in the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, is facing two counts of extortion. He was taken into custody in Florida and had his first appearance there. He will appear in Boston federal court later.
