Justice Department abruptly fires 3 prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 criminal cases, AP sources say
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Friday fired at least three prosecutors involved in U.S. Capitol riot criminal cases, the latest moves by the Trump administration targeting attorneys connected to the massive prosecution of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Those dismissed include two attorneys who worked as supervisors overseeing the Jan. 6 prosecutions in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington as well as a line attorney who prosecuted cases stemming from the Capitol attack, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.
A letter that was received by one of the prosecutors was signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The letter did not provide a reason for their removal, effective immediately, citing only 'Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States,' according to a copy seen by The Associated Press.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Friday evening.
The terminations marked yet another escalation of norm-shattering moves that have raised alarm over the Trump administration's disregard for civil service protections for career lawyers and the erosion of the Justice Department's independence from the White House. Top leaders at the Justice Department have also fired employees who worked on the prosecutions against Trump and demoted a slew of career supervisors in what has been seen as an effort to purge the agency of lawyers seen as insufficiently loyal.
Trump's sweeping pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters have led to worries about actions being taken against attorneys involved in the massive prosecution of the more than 1,500 Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol as lawmakers met to certify President Joe Biden's election victory. Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of all of them on his first day back in the White House, releasing from prison people convicted of seditious conspiracy and violent assaults on police.
During his time as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, Ed Martin in February demoted several prosecutors involved in the Jan. 6 cases, including the attorney who served as chief of the Capitol Siege Section. Others demoted include two lawyers who helped secure seditious conspiracy convictions against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio.
In January, then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordered the firings of about two dozen prosecutors who had been hired for temporary assignments to support the Jan. 6 cases, but were moved into permanent roles after Trump's presidential win in November. Bove said he would not 'tolerate subversive personnel actions by the previous administration.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
WhatsApp just got banned on Capitol Hill. Here's how you can make the Meta messaging platform more secure
The U.S. House of Representatives' Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Catherine Szpindor, informed congressional staffers this week that WhatsApp is now banned from government phones. The move came after the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity deemed the Meta-owned app to be 'high-risk to users'—a claim that WhatsApp quickly rebutted. But the CAO is correct. While WhatsApp is one of the more secure messaging apps out there, it does have some privacy and security risks. Users can mitigate some of these risks, but others are beyond their control. Here's why WhatsApp is now banned in the U.S. House of Representatives and how you can make the app more secure on your phone. What the Office of Cybersecurity said, exactly The news that the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity had announced a ban on WhatsApp this week came from Axios. On Tuesday, the publication published parts of an internal CAO memo it received, which was sent to congressional staffers on Monday, announcing that WhatsApp was now verboten on government phones. The memo stipulated that 'House staff are NOT allowed to download or keep the WhatsApp application on any House device, including any mobile, desktop, or web browser versions of its products.' It went on to add: 'If you have a WhatsApp application on your House-managed device, you will be contacted to remove it.' The reason? According to the memo, 'The Office of Cybersecurity has deemed WhatsApp a high-risk to users due to the lack of transparency in how it protects user data, absence of stored data encryption, and potential security risks involved with its use.' The CAO didn't provide further details in the memo regarding the above risks. Still, it's easy to interpret some of the things that may have made the CAO leery about the continued use of WhatsApp by Congressional staffers. WhatsApp's transparency issue WhatsApp, like competing secure messaging apps including Apple's iMessages and Signal, is end-to-end encrypted, meaning that no parties other than the ones in the chat, even including Meta, can read the chat messages. But WhatsApp collects a lot more metadata from each chat than other secure messaging apps do, and it sends this info to Meta A chat's metadata includes information such as the identities of the chat participants, IP addresses, phone numbers, and the timestamps of messages. No one knows exactly what Meta does with this metadata. Still, it is shared with Meta's other platforms, including Instagram and Facebook. It is likely used to help the company build social graphs of users, leveraged for advertising purposes, and analyzed by the company to understand who is using their apps, and when and where. This opaqueness is likely some of the 'lack of transparency' risk that the CAO was referring to. As for the 'absence of stored data encryption,' the CAO may have been referring to the default method by which WhatsApp backs up a user's chats. While WhatsApp chats are end-to-end encrypted, if a user backs up those chats to the cloud, the backup itself is not end-to-end encrypted by default. This means that if a bad actor gains access to a WhatsApp user's cloud backup, they could read all of that user's messages. It's no wonder the CAO's Office of Cybersecurity finds this worrying. WhatsApp also doesn't have other privacy and security features on by default, including the ability to lock the app behind biometrics and requiring two-step verification when a WhatsApp account is installed on another phone. If you don't work in the House of Representatives, you can still keep WhatsApp on your phone. But you might want to mitigate its privacy and security risks. Here's how. How to make WhatsApp more secure on your phone Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about WhatsApp's metadata problem. Meta designs WhatsApp so that the metadata of your chats is sent directly to the company. There's no way you can turn this data collection off. But you can make the app more secure on your phone by following some simple steps, including: End-to-end encrypt your WhatsApp backups: In WhatsApp, go to Settings>Chats>Chat Backup>End-to-End Encrypted Backup and turn this option on. Now your chat backups saved in the cloud will be end-to-end encrypted. Lock WhatsApp: You can set WhatsApp to refuse to open without further authentication by locking the app. This means that even if someone has access to your unlocked phone, they won't be able to open WhatsApp unless they know your phone's PIN, or have your face or fingerprint. To lock WhatsApp, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Privacy>App Lock and toggle the feature on. Enable two-step verification: If someone logs into your WhatsApp account on their phone, they'll be able to see your messages. That's why you should set up two-step verification for your account. This will require a PIN that you set to be entered whenever an attempt is made to log into your WhatsApp account on a new device. If the PIN isn't entered correctly, the new device won't have access to your account. To enable two-step verification, go to WhatsApp's Settings>Account>Two-Step Verification and toggle the feature on. Apps the CAO suggests using instead When reached for comment on the CAO's decision to ban WhatsApp, the organization's chief administrative officer, Catherine Szpindor, told Fast Company, 'Protecting the People's House is our topmost priority, and we are always monitoring and analyzing for potential cybersecurity risks that could endanger the data of House Members and staff. We routinely review the list of House-authorized apps and will amend the list as deemed appropriate.' In the past, the CAO has banned or imposed partial bans on various foreign apps, including those from ByteDance, such as TikTok. But the CAO has also previously announced bans or restrictions on apps made by American companies, including Microsoft Copilot and the free versions of ChatGPT. As for Meta, a company spokesperson told Fast Company that it disagrees with the CAO's characterization of WhatsApp 'in the strongest possible terms.' The spokesperson also asserted that, when it comes to end-to-end encryption, WhatsApp offers 'a higher level of security than most of the apps on the CAO's approved list that do not offer that protection.' In the Office of Cybersecurity's memo, the agency provided guidance on alternative secure messaging apps that House staffers could use now that WhatsApp had been banned. According to Axios, those apps include Apple's iMessage and FaceTime, Microsoft Teams, Wickr, and Signal.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Canadian firefighter says he was denied entry to U.S.: 'Good enough to fight their wars but not good enough to cross their borders'
A B.C. firefighter says he was denied entry into the United States, where he was going to take part in a competition for First Responders from different countries around the world. Jamie Flynn posted on social media on Thursday to detail what happened to him when he was en route to Birmingham, Alabama. He said he was supposed to represent Vancouver firefighters in the Jiu Jitsu category at the World Police & Fire Games. He described the games as an 'international event uniting frontline responders through sport,' in a post on Instagram. 'Being denied entry to the United States is deeply upsetting,' he told National Post in an emailed statement on Friday. 'I lost my flights, my time away, and my opportunity to compete at the World Police & Fire Games in Alabama — an event I had trained extensively for.' Flynn said he is a British citizen living in Canada as a permanent resident. He is a firefighter in Vancouver and volunteers with Squamish Search and Rescue. He has served in the British Parachute Regiment (SFSG) and has also served alongside U.S. forces under Joint Special Operations Command. 'I operated under U.S. command, wore the American uniform, and fought under the American flag. I've always felt a strong bond with the United States,' he told National Post. 'I have no criminal record and no known issues that would justify this denial.' In his post on Instagram, he said he trained for the competition in the U.S. for months. 'And still, I'm grounded — sidelined not by injury or lack of effort, but by bureaucracy and silence,' he wrote. Flynn intended to fly to Alabama from Vancouver International Airport on Wednesday. He never made his flight because his Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) had expired and would not be renewed, Global News reported. He said he received an update on the ESTA app that said, 'Travel not authorized.' ESTA is an automated system used to determine the eligibility of visitors to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It is valid for two years, or until a passport expires, and allows for multiple entries. If a traveller receives a 'travel not authorized' response to their application, CBP says online that they can look into applying for a visa if they still wish to enter the country. The denial only prohibits travel under the Visa Waiver Program and does not determine eligibility for a visa, per the agency. Canadian citizens travelling with a Canadian passport do not need to apply for an ESTA. Flynn said that he did not receive an explanation from anyone at the U.S. border, the U.S. consulate or the ESTA program. 'This feels like a clerical error,' he said, and, he added, it's cost him thousands of dollars. 'I'm gutted. I'm angry. And I want answers.' He ended the post with the line: 'We were good enough to fight their wars — but not good enough to cross their borders.' Flynn told National Post that he is looking forward to being able to visit the U.S. again in the near future. He has since submitted a visa application. Unfortunately, he said, the earliest available appointment is Feb. 11, 2027. University of Toronto law professor and Rebecca Cook Chair in Human Rights Law Audrey Macklin said her advice for travellers going to the U.S. is to avoid it altogether 'unless absolutely necessary.' 'Even at the best of times, states often treat non-citizens arbitrarily, and do not feel obliged to explain their actions,' she told National Post over email. 'This is sometimes justified on the ground that non-citizens do not have a right to enter, and therefore have no standing to complain about how a decision to admit or exclude is made. Since the rule of law is in free fall in the United States at the moment, the arbitrariness is more extreme, more coercive, and more frequent. That is why travellers should avoid the United States if they can.' U.S. Customs and Border Protection Public Affairs Officer Jessica Turner said in an emailed statement to National Post that 'CBP cannot comment on specifics regarding travellers' ESTA denials.' 'U.S. Embassies and Consulates are not able to provide details about ESTA denials or resolve the issue that caused the ESTA denial,' she said. 'Embassies and Consulates will process an application for a non-immigrant visa, which, if approved, will be the only way that a traveler whose ESTA application has been denied would be authorized to travel to the U.S.' U.S. deports 70-year-old man after he 'violently' kicked a customs dog at an airport U.S. man drives into Canada by mistake, gets busted with 78 pounds of pot on the way back Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades
The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, will allow Mr. Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that already took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
