Former US Attorney Catherine Hanaway appointed as Missouri's next attorney general
Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe announced Hanaway's appointment just a day after Attorney General Andrew Bailey said he was stepping down to join President Donald Trump's administration as the FBI's co-deputy director. The change in Missouri's top law enforcement job will take effect Sept. 8.
'Fighting crime is — and will remain — job one for this office' Hanaway said.
Hanaway has deep roots in Missouri politics and extensive ties as a private practice attorney to corporate clients that will cause her to recuse from some cases as attorney general.
Hanaway first won election to the Missouri House in 1998 and led the GOP takeover of the chamber in the 2002 elections as the state began a gradual transition from a political tossup to a GOP stronghold. She served as Missouri's first and only woman House speaker before losing a bid for secretary of state in 2004. She was appointed the next year by President George W. Bush as U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Missouri, which she held until 2009.
She lost a Republican primary for governor in 2016.
As a partner at the Husch Blackwell law firm, Hanaway has represented global chemical manufacturer Bayer in lobbying for legislation that would provide a legal shield against mounting claims that it failed to warn customers that its popular Roundup weedkiller can allegedly cause cancer.
Husch Blackwell also represents Invenergy, which is attempting to use eminent domain to acquire land for a high-voltage transmission line to carry wind-generated power from Kansas across Missouri and Illinois to an electric grid in Indiana. Bailey has opposed the project, and Hanaway said she will recuse herself as the attorney general's office continues a civil investigation into it.
Bailey, a staunch Trump supporter, has served as attorney general since January 2023 and won election last November to a full four-year term. Hanaway said she intends to serve the remainder of Bailey's term and seek election herself in 2028.
Bailey brought an aggressive approach to the attorney general's office. He pursued numerous legal challenges against Democratic President Joe Biden's administration on policies ranging from student loan forgiveness to environmental rules, immigration actions and transgender rights measures.
He also pursued conservative causes in his home state, threatening legal action against private gyms over bathroom policies, demanding that public schools ban drag shows and defending the state's anti-abortion regulations in the face of a voter-approved constitutional amendment establishing a right to abortion.
Hanaway praised Bailey but placed a greater emphasis on criminal cases than civil litigation while talking to reporters Tuesday.
Missouri's attorney general job has become a quick stepping stone for aspiring politicians.
Less than a year after winning election as attorney general in 2016, Republican Josh Hawley launched a challenge to Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill. After Hawley won election to the Senate in 2018, Republican Gov. Mike Parson appointed state Treasurer Eric Schmitt to serve the remainder of Hawley's term.
Schmitt won election to his own term as attorney general in 2020, but then quickly announced he was running to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt in the 2022 elections. After Schmitt won the Senate race, Parson appointed Bailey — an Army veteran serving as the governor's general counsel — to fill the remainder of Schmitt's term.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
25 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most say partisan redistricting threatens democracy: Survey
Most Americans said partisan redistricting in the House threatens democracy, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. Fifty-five percent in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said there is a negative effect on democracy from changing House district maps to secure seats, with 46 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats saying the same. California and Texas are going head-to-head in a redistricting fight, with other states evaluating a similar process. On Wednesday, the Texas state House passed a new set of GOP-leaning congressional lines, placing Republicans another step closer toward adopting a new map that kicked off a redistricting arms race. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who is pushing for redistricting in his own state, appeared to issue a threat to the Lone Star State in a vague post on the social platform X. 'It's on, Texas,' the Golden State governor said in his evening post. Twenty-seven percent in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they were unsure if there is a negative effect on democracy from changing House district maps to secure seats, and 18 percent said there was a positive effect from doing so. The same Reuters/Ipsos poll also found President Trump's approval rating stuck at the lowest level of his second term, 40 percent. The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which was conducted from Aug. 13-18, included 4,446 participants and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points.
Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump planning to join federal agents in D.C. crime patrols
President Trump said he expects to join federal agents on a patrol in D.C. Thursday night as both officers and protesters increase their numbers and rhetoric during the president's crackdown on crime in the capital. Why it matters: The president reaffirmed that he is using D.C. as a "test" to see how federal involvement could play out in other cities. What they're saying:"I'm going to be going out tonight I think, with the police and with the military of course," Trump told conservative podcast host Todd Starnes. The president said he was keeping his movements a "secret" outside of telling Starnes and podcasts' "lots of listeners." The White House did not immediately confirm the president's plans to Axios. Catch up quick: The president previously said he would be intervening in other cities when he first announced that he would be taking over D.C.'s police force. The president specifically called Los Angeles, Baltimore, Oakland, New York and Chicago as "bad, very bad," without going into details. Crime in all five of the cities that Trump mentioned is down overall. On the podcast Thursday, Trump said he would put Memphis, Tennessee "early on the list" of cities he'd be cracking down on, in response to Starnes telling him that the city is run by a Democratic mayor. Yes, but: D.C.'s unique position as an area controlled by both federal and local laws gives the president power in the capital that he lacks in other cities. The president does have the ability to federalize state National Guard members in times of perceived crisis, as he did in response to protests against his immigration lock down in Los Angeles.
