US Justice Department 'weaponization' reviews spark calls to drop prosecutions
WASHINGTON, June 10 (Reuters) - As the federal public corruption prosecution of former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada neared trial this spring, his lawyers made one last effort to kill the case, by petitioning senior Justice Department officials that it was "weaponization," according to three people familiar with the matter.
Under President Donald Trump, the department in February created a "Weaponization Working Group" meant to identify improper politically motivated cases, a response to what the Republican says without evidence was the misuse of prosecutorial resources against him under his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden.
In court filings, prosecutors said that Casada's lawyers met with a senior Justice Department official on March 24, where they alleged the "Deep State" had initiated a "weaponized" prosecution and they sought dismissal of the charges.
The plan almost worked, according to three people familiar with the matter.
With the Deputy Attorney General's office poised to kill the case, prosecutors in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section pushed back, reviewing their evidence with the higher-ups, the sources said, adding that the Nashville U.S. Attorney's office and the Criminal Division also supported the case.
The request was rejected the next week, according to court filings. Both Casada and the DOJ declined to comment.
The case is among at least seven Reuters identified where defense attorneys or Justice Department officials have sought to have prosecutions reviewed for possible dismissal, citing Trump's "weaponization" argument or making other arguments about weaknesses in the cases.
In a Tuesday speech, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Galeotti urged defense attorneys to be "conscientious about what, when and how" they appeal prosecutors' decisions.
"Seeking premature relief, mischaracterizing prosecutorial conduct, or otherwise failing to be an honest broker actively undermines our system," Galeotti said.
The increase in lobbying started not long after the Weaponization Working Group was created, and after the department's February decision to dismiss criminal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, six sources familiar with the dynamic told Reuters.
To date, the Adams case is the only one to be dismissed over 'weaponization,' three of those sources told Reuters.
The lobbying wave comes as the Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, reduced the size of its foreign bribery unit and advised department attorneys that tax enforcement is "not a priority," two of the people familiar with the matter said.
A department spokesman said the DOJ will "continue to enforce our nation's tax laws."
Trump has said the changes are necessary to root out Justice Department lawyers he derides as 'hacks and radicals' for prosecuting him and some supporters while he was out of power.
The working group is empowered, opens new tab to review any 'civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States' exercised under Biden.
A lawyer for Robert Burke, a former Navy admiral who was convicted in May on bribery charges, wrote to the department ahead of trial raising concerns about witness credibility, which failed to convince prosecutors to drop the case.
Now the lawyer, Tim Parlatore -- a former Trump defense lawyer -- plans to seek a pardon.
"I would be crazy not to at least inquire about a pardon," Parlatore said.
Another example is a case involving billionaire Britannia Financial Group founder Julio Martín Herrera-Velutini, who is facing an August trial alongside Puerto Rico's former governor on bribery charges.
Herrera-Velutini is represented by former Trump defense attorney Chris Kise, who has sought to convince the Justice Department to dismiss or reduce the charges, though the outcome of such efforts is unclear, three people familiar with the case told Reuters. Kise did not return requests for comment, and Reuters could not determine what arguments he has made to the department about the case.
While many of the reviews of cases are spurred by aggressive lobbying, some requests are coming from within the DOJ.
In early February, prosecutors in the department's Tax Division were ordered by senior Justice Department officials to write a memo explaining why the prosecution of Paul Walczak was not an example of "weaponization," two of the people familiar with the matter told Reuters.
Walczak, of Florida, pleaded guilty in November to not paying employment taxes and not filing his individual income tax returns, and the trial team was preparing for his sentencing.
Prosecutors were baffled, the people said, and only discovered after a few Google searches that Walczak's mother Elizabeth Fago was a Trump donor who, according to a New York Times report, hosted a political fundraiser where portions of a diary written by Biden's daughter Ashley were circulated.
The department let the case proceed, and Walczak was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Trump in April spared him any prison with a pardon, which according to the New York Times, was handed down shortly after Fago attended a $1 million fundraising dinner for Trump.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the pardon.
An attorney for Walczak said he was unaware of any interactions by the defense team with the Weaponization Working Group. In a statement, the Fago and Walczak families said media reports have painted an "incomplete and inaccurate" picture of the pardon application, and that Trump had "ample grounds to grant the pardon on the merits."
Although no criminal prosecutions have been dismissed, prosecutors are bracing for impact since Trump in May named Ed Martin, a supporter of Trump's false claims that his 2020 election defeat was the result of fraud, to lead the working group and serve as pardon attorney.
Martin has already successfully encouraged Trump to approve pardons for some of the president's supporters, according to his social media posts.
Casada, who was convicted at trial in May on multiple counts of fraud, money laundering and bribery, is now expected to seek a pardon, a person familiar with the matter said.
"We've also been getting more folks coming forward within the government as well as outside, saying, 'Can you look at this? Can you look at that?'" Martin recently told reporters.
"It's a problem that seems to be growing faster than we can capture it."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Blow for Rachel Reeves after UK economy shrinks by more than expected
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's energy dominance agenda could be ravaged by Section 899
LONDON, June 12 - A proposed U.S. tax targeting foreign investors could hurt European energy giants that operate in America's booming oil and gas sector, undermining what President Donald Trump describes as his energy dominance agenda. Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill under review by the Senate includes an additional tax of up to 20% on foreign investors' income, such as dividends and royalties. The tax, known as Section 899, was devised as a pushback against countries that impose what the bill describes as "unfair foreign taxes" on U.S. companies, such as digital services taxes. Section 899 is believed to be targeting companies headquartered in the European Union and Britain, which both have tax systems considered discriminatory by the Trump administration. The provision is a significant threat to London-listed Shell (SHEL.L), opens new tab and BP (BP.L), opens new tab as well as France's TotalEnergies ( opens new tab and Spain's Repsol ( opens new tab, which all have sprawling operations in the United States. Trump, who often used the slogan "drill, baby, drill" in his election campaign, has portrayed himself as pro-fossil fuel, vowing on his first day in office to maximise oil and gas production. But if approved, Section 899 could have the opposite effect. BP last year invested more than $6 billion, about 40% of its capital expenditure, in the United States, where its interests include onshore and offshore oil and gas operations, two refineries, thousands of retail fuel stations and a power trading business. The country is also home to more than a third of BP's global workforce of about 90,000 and accounted for roughly 30% of its 2024 revenue of $189 billion and more than a quarter of its $21 billion net profit. Shell, the biggest European oil major, is also a huge investor in the United States, which accounted for 23% of its 2024 revenue of $284 billion. It invests about 30% of its capital expenditure in the country, where it has oil and gas production facilities, a petrochemicals plant, a vast retail network, liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchasing agreements and major trading operations. The United States became increasingly important to Big Oil companies in recent decades thanks to its stable fiscal and regulatory environment while other regions presented a variety of challenges. Take Russia, for example. Its vast oil and gas resources started attracting investments from many companies in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the country is now uninvestible owing to western sanctions that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Similarly, western companies have limited opportunities to invest in the Middle East, where national oil companies dominate. Europe, meanwhile, has limited natural resources and strict environmental regulation. The multinational nature of oil and gas companies means they have plenty of experience dealing with tax uncertainty, but shifting tax policies tend to delay investments. Company boards require long-term confidence to proceed with large, multi-decade capital projects such as oil and gas fields or LNG plants. The industry's confidence in the United States was already shaken under Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, who in 2020 revoked a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The Biden administration also paused approvals for new LNG projects in 2024 because of climate concerns. Trump lifted the pause when he entered the White House. According to Section 899, multinational companies could face a new tax on dividends sent overseas and inter-company loans, potentially reducing profit. The Gulf of Mexico accounted for about 10% of Shell's 2024 free cash flow of $40 billion, it said in a presentation. That means that Section 899 could shave $800 million from its free cash flow per year from Gulf of Mexico operations alone. BP made about $1.5 billion in free cash flow in the United States last year, Reuters calculations show. A 20% dividend tax could translate into a $300 million loss in free cash flow. Faced with the worsening fiscal terms, companies could opt to direct funds away from the United States. Though options for deploying capital elsewhere on a similar scale are limited, companies could choose to spread their investments more widely. Such a scenario could be a boon for countries such as Canada, Brazil, Mozambique and Namibia, which have large untapped natural resources. Another option would be for companies to transfer their headquarters and listings to the United States - a costly and politically complicated option. Shell previously contemplated such a move to boost its share value, though it appears to have abandoned the idea. Ultimately, it is very likely that the Senate would push to modify Section 899 or limit its scope, given the potential far-reaching impact on many sectors. But barring a radical change, Section 899 poses a huge risk for European oil and gas giants that are heavily dependent on the United States. Achieving the Trump administration's energy dominance agenda will almost certainly require more foreign investment, not less, so if the CEOs of European energy companies complain loudly enough, the president may well listen to them. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
What is Aukus, the submarine deal between Australia, UK and US?
A multi-billion dollar submarine deal between long-standing allies - Australia, the UK and the US - has come under the spotlight after the Trump administration said it was reviewing how the deal fits in with its heavily-touted "America First" agenda. The Aukus security pact, Australia's biggest ever defence project, is set to play a key part in the country's ability to replace its ageing Collins-class submarine fleet - and, crucially, its military standing in the region. The 30-day review will be led by Elbridge Colby, who has previously been critical of Aukus. In a speech last year, he questioned why the US would give away "this crown jewel asset when we most need it". A US defence spokesperson said the review is about ensuring "this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda".Fears the review may torpedo the deal have been downplayed by the UK and Australia, with both saying the review is a normal process when a new government takes power. What is Aukus? Billed as a trilateral security partnership, the Aukus deal - worth £176bn ($239bn; A$368bn) over 30 years - involves two so-called pillars. Pillar 1 is about the supply and delivery of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Australia will buy three second-hand Virginia-class submarines from the US from 2032 with options to purchase two that, the plan is to design and build an entirely new nuclear-powered submarine model for the UK and Australian attack craft will be built in Britain and Australia to a British design, but use technology from all three 2 is about the allies collaborating on their "advanced capabilities". This involves sharing military expertise in areas such as long-range hypersonic missiles, undersea robotics and AI. What's the purpose of the deal? At its core, the deal is believed to be about countering China's growing presence in the Indo-Pacific region, and its role in rising tensions in disputed territories such as the South China none of the allies have directly pointed at China as a reason for the deal, the three countries have spoken about how regional security concerns have "grown significantly" in recent condemned the agreement as "extremely irresponsible" when it was first ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said it "seriously undermines regional peace and stability and intensifies the arms race". Who negotiated it? The deal was unveiled in September 2021 by three former leaders: Australia's Scott Morrison, the UK's Boris Johnson and the US's Joe Biden. The UK reviewed the security pact last year after Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government won the general election. What does Australia get out of it? For Australia, the deal represents a major upgrade to its military capabilities. The country is set to become just the second to receive Washington's elite nuclear propulsion technology, after the submarines will be able to operate further and faster than the country's existing diesel-engine fleet. They would also mean Australia would be able to carry out long-range strikes against enemies for the first the deal, sailors from the Royal Australian Navy are due to be sent to US and UK submarine bases to learn how to use the nuclear-powered submarines. What do the UK and US get out of it? From 2027, the pact will allow both the US and UK to base a small number of nuclear submarines in Perth, Western will also create about 7,000 jobs in Britain, with the design and construction of the new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines set to take place in the UK. The benefits for the US are less obvious - but sharing its defence technology could give the nation an opportunity to grow its presence in Asia-Pacific. Arming Australia has historically been viewed by Washington and Downing Street as essential to preserving peace in a region that is far from their own.
