After a Chaotic Start, a U.S. Attorney's Time May Be Running Out
But his lawyers had a plan. They reached out to the state's newly installed U.S. attorney, Alina Habba, hoping to persuade her to push for an unusually light penalty, even though their client was a repeat felon.
Ms. Habba granted them a rare private meeting to discuss the sentencing, which is scheduled for September, and she did not invite the prosecutors who had handled Mr. Weinstein's case, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. The episode left members of her staff infuriated.
A brash media personality and former personal lawyer to Mr. Trump, Ms. Habba is among the most high-profile of the new U.S. attorneys appointed by a president who has taken closer control of the Justice Department than any other in the past half century. She has made frequent media appearances and drawn attention for a series of notable investigations into Democratic political figures.
Her tenure has also shattered morale inside the U.S. attorney's office and left many prosecutors looking for a way out, according to 16 close observers of the office who were interviewed for this article and spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.
Ms. Habba boasted, upon taking office, of her direct line to the White House, according to people with knowledge of her remarks, even as she has insisted that she is 'not political.' Prosecutors have chafed at her availability to defense lawyers. She disbanded the office's Civil Rights Division and killed the office's longest-running prosecution just days before it was scheduled to go to trial. Three framed pictures of herself now hang in a conference room named for a legendary New Jersey crime fighter, Frederick B. Lacey.
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
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration recommends location verification for AI chips
By Stephen Nellis SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday recommended implementing export controls that would verify the location of advanced artificial intelligence chips, a move that was applauded by U.S. lawmakers from both parties in both houses of Congress. The recommendation was part of a broader AI blueprint released on Wednesday that aimed to boost exports of AI hardware and software to U.S. allies and relax U.S. environmental rules to speed the construction of new AI data centers. But the plan released Wednesday also said the U.S. should continue denying access to advanced U.S. AI chips made by companies like Nvidia and AMD to foreign adversaries. It added the U.S. government should "explore leveraging new and existing location verification features on advanced AI compute to ensure that the chips are not in countries of concern." The recommendation drew support from two lawmakers who previously introduced bills that would require location verification of chips after sale over concerns that they are finding their way to countries such as China, where their export is banned. Key details - such as how the technology would be implemented and how much cost it would add - remain to be worked out, both in the proposed bills and the Trump administration's recommendations. "I was encouraged to see that the recommended export control policy includes location verification mechanisms and aligns closely with our bipartisan Chip Security Act. I look forward to learning more of the technical details and next steps for end-use verification," Representative Bill Foster, an Illinois Democrat who helped introduce a chip-location bill in May, told Reuters. "Senator Cotton was pleased to see verification included in President Trump's AI Action Plan, as it's a vital part of his bipartisan, bicameral Chip Security Act and an important tool to keep advanced American technology out of the hands of Communist China," said Patrick McCann, a spokesperson for Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican who introduced a similar bill in the U.S. Senate.
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Judge Denies DOJ Request To Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Docs - The Lead with Jake Tapper - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Judge Denies DOJ Request To Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Docs The Lead with Jake Tapper 87 mins A slew of new details emerge in the Jeffrey Epstein case just as a judge declines to release some grand jury documents from the criminal investigation. CNN has confirmed that Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump back in May that his name was one of many in the Epstein files.
Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court finds Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional, upholds block
'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,' the majority wrote. Advertisement The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The Supreme Court has since But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under Advertisement 'We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,' Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote. Judge Patrick Bumatay, who was appointed by Trump, dissented. He found that the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to sue. 'We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions,' he wrote. Bumatay did not weigh in on whether ending birthright citizenship would be constitutional. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase 'subject to United States jurisdiction' in the amendment means that citizenship isn't automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon — argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil. Trump's order asserts that a child born in the U.S. is not a citizen if the mother does not have legal immigration status or is in the country legally but temporarily, and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. At least nine lawsuits challenging the order have been filed around the U.S. Advertisement Associated Press writer Rebecca Boone contributed to this story.
