Raskin launches probe of McIver charges in ICE facility scuffle
Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is launching an investigation into the charges filed against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and the mayor of Newark, N.J., saying the move appears to violate Justice Department policy.
McIver was charged last month after a scuffle with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility after they began to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D).
Alina Habba, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey and former personal attorney to President Trump, charged McIver with assaulting law enforcement, saying she used her forearms to push back against agents.
Habba's office has already moved to dismiss the trespassing charges initially filed against Baraka, earning a reprimand from the judge in the case who cited an 'apparent rush in this case, culminating…in the embarrassing retraction of charges.'
'Ms. Habba's unprecedented charging decision is a blatant attempt to intimidate Members of Congress and to deter us from carrying out our constitutional oversight duties. It appears Ms. Habba brought these charges in violation of long-standing Department of Justice (DOJ) policies designed to prevent exactly this type of politically motivated abuse of prosecutorial power,' Raskin wrote.
Raskin fired off a series of questions about the charges brought against both McIver and Baraka.
That includes whether there was any contact with the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department.
'DOJ prosecutors must consult with the Public Integrity Section before initiating an investigation of Members of Congress and must seek the Section's approval before bringing charges. 21 Reports suggest, however, that Ms. Habba did not,' Raskin wrote.
'The consultation requirement is designed to guard against a rampant Executive Branch weaponizing the vast apparatus of federal law enforcement against the President's perceived enemies, or even the perception that a DOJ investigation or prosecution was motivated by improper political purpose. The Justice Manual is clear that approval from the Public Integrity Section is required before charging a Member of Congress with a crime based on actions taken in their official capacity.'
The Justice Department said it is considering removing the requirement that prosecutors first consult with the Public Integrity Section.
Raskin asks the DOJ whom Habba consulted before bringing charges, if she coordinated with Trump or any White House staff, and to turn over all communications regarding the charges.
For her part, McIver has denied any wrongdoing and noted she rejected a plea deal from Habba, saying it pushed her to 'admit to doing something that I did not do.'
'I came there to do my job and conduct an oversight visit, and they wanted me to say something differently, and I'm not doing that. I'm not going to roll over and stop doing my job because they don't want me to, or they want to neglect the fact that we needed to be in there to see what was going on and that detention center, and so, absolutely, no, I was not going to do that,' McIver said during an appearance last month on CNN.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is back in the US, charged with human smuggling as attorneys vow ongoing fight
To hear the Trump administration tell it, Kilmar Abrego Garcia smuggled thousands of people across the country who were living in the U.S. illegally, including members of the violent MS-13 gang, long before his mistaken deportation to El Salvador. In allegations made public nearly three months after his removal, U.S. officials say Abrego Garcia abused the women he transported, while a co-conspirator alleged he participated in a gang-related killing in his native El Salvador. Abrego Garcia's wife and lawyers offer a much different story. They say the now 29-year-old had as a teenager fled local gangs that terrorized his family in El Salvador for a life in Maryland. He found work in construction, got married and was raising three children with disabilities before he was mistakenly deported in March. The fight that became a political flashpoint in the administration's stepped-up immigration enforcement now returns to the U.S. court system, where Abrego Garcia appeared Friday after being returned from El Salvador. He faces new charges related to a large human smuggling operation and is in federal custody in Tennessee. Attorney General Pam Bondi called Abrego Garcia 'a smuggler of humans and children and women' in announcing the unsealing of a grand jury indictment. His lawyers say a jury won't believe the 'preposterous' allegations. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, said his return to the U.S. was long overdue. 'As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it's about his constitutional rights – and the rights of all," the Maryland Democrat said in a statement. "The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.' Gang threats in El Salvador Abrego Garcia grew up in El Salvador's capital city, San Salvador, according to court documents filed in U.S. immigration court in 2019. His father was a former police officer. His mother, Cecilia, sold pupusas, flat tortilla pouches that hold steaming blends of cheese, beans or pork. The entire family, including his two sisters and brother, ran the business from home, court records state. 'Everyone in the town knew to get their pupusas from 'Pupuseria Cecilia,'' his lawyers wrote. A local gang, Barrio 18, began extorting the family for 'rent money' and threatened to kill his brother Cesar — or force him into their gang — if they weren't paid, court documents state. The family complied but eventually sent Cesar to the U.S. Barrio 18 similarly targeted Abrego Garcia, court records state. When he was 12, the gang threatened to take him away until his father paid them. The family moved but the gang threatened to rape and kill Abrego Garcia's sisters, court records state. The family closed the business, moved again, and eventually sent Abrego Garcia to the U.S. The family never went to the authorities because of rampant police corruption, according to court filings. The gang continued to harass the family in Guatemala, which borders El Salvador. Life in the U.S. Abrego Garcia fled to the U.S. illegally around 2011, the year he turned 16, according to documents in his immigration case. He joined Cesar, now a U.S. citizen, in Maryland and found construction work. About five years later, Abrego Garcia met Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, the records say. In 2018, after she learned she was pregnant, he moved in with her and her two children. They lived in Prince George's County, just outside Washington. In March 2019, Abrego Garcia went to a Home Depot seeking work as a laborer when he and three other men were detained by local police, court records say. They were suspected of being in MS-13 based on tattoos and clothing. A criminal informant told police that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13, court records state but Prince George's County Police did not charge the men. The department said this year it had no further interactions with Abrego Garcia or 'any new intelligence' on him. Abrego Garcia has denied being in MS-13. Although they did not charge him, local police turned Abrego Garcia over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He told a U.S. immigration judge that he would seek asylum and asked to be released because Vasquez Sura was pregnant, according to his immigration case. The Department of Homeland Security alleged Abrego Garcia was a gang member based on the county police's information, according to the case. The immigration judge kept Abrego Garcia in jail as his case continued, the records show. Abrego Garcia later married Vasquez Sura in a Maryland detention center, according to court filings. She gave birth while he was still in jail. In October 2019, an immigration judge denied Abrego Garcia's asylum request but granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador because of a 'well-founded fear' of gang persecution, according to his case. He was released; ICE did not appeal. Abrego Garcia checked in with ICE yearly while Homeland Security issued him a work permit, his attorneys said in court filings. He joined a union and was employed full time as a sheet metal apprentice. In 2021, Vasquez Sura filed a temporary protection order against Abrego Garcia, stating he punched, scratched and ripped off her shirt during an argument. The case was dismissed weeks later, according to court records. Vasquez Sura said in a statement, after the document's release by the Trump administration, that the couple had worked things out 'privately as a family, including by going to counseling.' 'After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution after a disagreement with Kilmar,' she stated. She added that 'Kilmar has always been a loving partner and father, and I will continue to stand by him." A traffic stop in Tennessee In 2022, according to a report released by the Trump administration, Abrego Garcia was stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol for speeding. The vehicle had eight other people and no luggage, prompting an officer to suspect him of human trafficking, the report stated. Abrego Garcia said he was driving them from Texas to Maryland for construction work, the report stated. No citations were issued. Abrego Garcia's wife said in a statement in April that he sometimes transported groups of workers between job sites, 'so it's entirely plausible he would have been pulled over while driving with others in the vehicle. He was not charged with any crime or cited for any wrongdoing.' The Tennessee Highway Patrol released video body camera footage this May of the 2022 traffic stop. It shows a calm and friendly exchange between officers and Abrego Garcia as well as the officers discussing among themselves their suspicions of human trafficking before sending him on his way. One of the officers said: 'He's hauling these people for money.' Another said he had $1,400 in an envelope. An attorney for Abrego Garcia, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said in a statement after the release that he saw no evidence of a crime in the footage. Mistaken deportation and new charges Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador in March despite the U.S. immigration judge's order. For nearly three months, his attorneys have fought for his return in a federal court in Maryland. The Trump administration described the mistaken removal as 'an administrative error' but insisted he was in MS-13. His abrupt release from El Salvador closes one chapter and opens another in the months-long standoff. The charges he faces stem from the 2022 vehicle stop in Tennessee but the human smuggling indictment lays out a string of allegations that date back to 2016 but are only being disclosed now. A co-conspirator also alleged that Abrego Garcia participated in the killing of a gang member's mother in El Salvador, prosecutors wrote in papers urging the judge to keep him behind bars while he awaits trial. The indictment does not charge him in connection with that allegation. 'This is what American justice looks like,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in announcing Abrego Garcia's return and the unsealing of a grand jury indictment. Abrego Garcia's attorney disagreed. "There's no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,' attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Some Texas lawmakers demand in-state tuition protections for undocumented students
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A group of Texas lawmakers called on higher education leaders in the state to protect undocumented students' access to in-state tuition, after the state agreed to end the practice earlier this week. On Wednesday, the Justice Department sued the state over the 2001 Texas Dream Act, which allowed those students to receive in-state tuition if they met certain qualifications. The lawsuit alleged this act violated federal law, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly responded that his office would not contest the suit—causing the law to be repealed through a default judgment. RELATED | Justice Department sues Texas over in-state tuition for undocumented students In a letter sent on Friday, more than a dozen Democratic state representatives called on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to create a 'provisional classification' that could allow students who previously qualified under the law to enroll this fall 'at the rate they reasonably expected.' The letter later said, in part, 'It is especially cruel and short-sighted to apply this policy change retroactively just weeks before the start of the 2025-2026 academic year. These students made plans, accepted offers, and committed to their futures in good faith.' The lawmakers urged the board to use its rulemaking authority to create this classification — for example, 'first-generation resident tuition' — at least temporarily. They called for the board to release guidance to institutions that would 'preserve tuition equity for students during the transition period.' The lawmakers also noted the move would not override statute but would provide 'a critical bridge' until the Legislature could address the matter during the next legislative session in two years. Earlier this year, during the most recent legislative session, lawmakers considered bills to repeal the Dream Act and heard hours of testimony on it, but it was left pending and failed to pass. In 2001, the Dream Act had bipartisan support and was signed into law by Republican former Governor Rick Perry. RELATED | Texas' undocumented college students no longer qualify for in-state tuition In its lawsuit, the DOJ argues that a 1996 federal law, known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), preempts the Dream Act. Attorney General Pam Bondi called it a 'blatant violation' of the federal law. 'Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,' Bondi said. 'The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country.' Legal experts talked to KXAN this week about whether the move by the Trump administration and Paxton's quick agreement allowed for any way for opponents of the change to challenge the decision. Josh Blackman, associate professor of law at South Texas College of Law, said the decision appears effectively final. Barbara Hines, an immigration law professor who helped craft the initial Texas Dream Act, did not share Blackman's assessment that it was the end of the road for the law. She said that in previous lawsuits related to the Dream Act or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, other parties have been allowed to intervene. RELATED | Law professors react: Texas will no longer provide in-state tuition to undocumented students According to the Texas Higher Education Commissioner, around 19,000 students will be affected by the change. The lawmakers' letter argued that the state stands to lose talent, which could affect the workforce and the economy. It said, 'This is not just a moral failure, it's a strategic and economic blunder that will be felt for generations to come.' Economic factors proved to be a driving force behind the Dream Act's passage in 2001. According to a 2015 report by The Texas Tribune, former Governor Perry said at the time, '[Texas] had a choice to make economically: Are you going to put these people in a position of having to rely upon government to take care of themselves, or are you going to let them be educated and be contributing members of society, obviously working towards their citizenship.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Buzz Feed
21 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
15 Liberals And Conservatives Share Controversial Opinions
Hi. My name is Michaela, and last year, during one of the most dramatic election years in US history, I started a series on the site called "BuzzFeed's Political Diaries," where I asked readers from all over the country who they were planning to vote for and what political issues mattered most to them. Now, as our country seems to be more divided than ever under a second Trump administration, I'm asking BuzzFeeders to share a political opinion they hold that aligns more with the beliefs of the opposite party. Here are the most interesting responses I received: "I can't believe I even have to say this. I've been a Republican for my entire life (I believe in a smaller government and less taxes), and I don't agree with MAGA at all. Especially not the part about absolutely ruining the LGBTQ+ community's lives." "I'm a Democrat and I believe anti-public 'camping' laws should be strictly enforced and offenders arrested. In other words, make all cities unfriendly to homeless people so we can take back our parks, sidewalks, recreation areas, and downtowns can be a jewel again." "I believe in transgender rights, gay marriage, and abortion. I'm a conservative, and one of the original beliefs of conservatism was 'limited government.'" "As a Democrat, I think positively of the George H.W. Bush presidency. He signed the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, making it illegal to discriminate based on disability. As someone on the Autism Spectrum, I am thankful for it because I would not have the things I need to be successful in school and in life if it were not signed." "I am a hardcore Republican all the way, but I strongly disagree with some of the pardons Donald Trump has done/alluded to (example, potentially pardoning Diddy)." "I'm a Democrat, and I believe that biological men don't belong in women's sports, and especially our locker rooms. They can have their own leagues/rooms. It's crazy to me that so many people, especially other women, are so eager to allow that to happen." "I'm a far left progressive who believes that Israel deserves and needs to exist, full stop." "I'm a Republican, and I disagree with what Trump is doing to this country, especially all the deportations of innocent people who have the legal right to be here!" "I'm an Independent who leans Democrat. I'm generally okay with people owning guns for a lot of reasons if they get proper training first. Ironically, I'm also fine with the Death Penalty existing." "As Democrats, we need to stop focusing on policing words. They're just words. I can think of maybe TWO slurs that should just never be used, but the rest? Honestly? Who fucking cares!?!" "I am a Democrat, but really a moderate. I agree with a lot of the societal and cultural positions aligned with the Democratic Party. However, I do think that sometimes, you do have to steamroll and say screw bipartisanship." "As a Democrat, I firmly believe some of the policies that the Democrats fight for, like what Kamala ran on, are not popular with the public as much as they believe it is, and that's a big part of why we lost last year." "I'm an independent, and I believe life for kids got worse once moms had to get a job. With or without a husband, being a mom is hard, constant work, and adding a full-time job to that is not family-friendly at all." "I'm a Democrat and I 100% believe that people convicted of despicable crimes should receive the death penalty." And finally... "The left needs to drop the moral argument from their campaign strategy. The popular vote said that more than half the country doesn't care if you're a convicted rapist that doesn't know the first line of the Constitution, you can still be president. So why do we keep arguing the point?" What are your thoughts? Share the political opinion that would make you the black sheep of your party in the comments below.
