Judge denies effort by US Rep Cuellar of Texas to move bribery trial to hometown of Laredo
HOUSTON (AP) — A judge on Friday denied an effort by lawyers for U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas to move his trial on federal bribery and conspiracy charges from Houston to his hometown of Laredo, Texas.
During a Zoom court hearing, Chris Flood, one of Cuellar's lawyers, had argued that Houston is more than 300 miles (482 kilometers) from Laredo, where many of the alleged crimes the congressman is accused of committing took place. Flood also pushed back against claims prosecutors would face difficulties trying Cuellar in Laredo, where he is well known.
Federal authorities have charged Cuellar, 69, and his wife, Imelda Cuellar, with accepting thousands of dollars in exchange for the congressman advancing the interests of an Azerbaijan-controlled energy company and a bank in Mexico. Cuellar has said he and his wife are innocent.
Celia Choy, a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Justice Department, argued moving the trial would further delay it and she questioned if an unbiased jury could be picked in Cuellar's hometown.
U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal cited the prominence Cuellar and his wife have in Laredo as well as having a larger jury pool in the Houston area as some of the reasons for not moving the trial to Laredo.
'Houston can handle this case easily, very easily,' Rosenthal said.
The judge also denied a request by Cuellar's attorneys to push back the start of the trial. The trial for Cuellar and his wife is set to begin Sept. 22.
Cuellar and his wife appeared during Friday's Zoom hearing but didn't speak.
Since Cuellar's indictment in April 2024, three people have pleaded guilty in connection with the case: Colin Strother, one of Cuellar's top former aides; Florencio Rendon, a Texas political and business consultant; and Irada Akhoundova, who was director of a Texas affiliate of an Azerbaijan energy company.
___
Follow Juan A. Lozano: https://twitter.com/juanlozano70
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
16 new vetoes boost Lombardo total to 49; HOA limits, price fixing bill rejected
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed 16 more bills on Monday, including two that would have reined in powers wielded by HOAs — homeowners associations. He also vetoed a price-fixing bill. The Republican governor has now vetoed 49 bills passed by the Democrat-controlled Nevada Legislature, which adjourned in the early morning hours of Tuesday, June 3. Lombardo has 10 days after adjournment (excluding Sundays) to veto bills. Lombardo set a record after the 2023 legislative session, vetoing 75 bills. Veto messages reflected Republican principles — smaller government and pro-business laws — as Lombardo his decisions. Here's a closer look at some of the vetoes issued on Monday: PRICE FIXING: One of the vetoed bills, Assembly Bill 44 (AB44), was singled out as 'a striking case of government overreach.' AB44 would have granted the Nevada Attorney General the authority to investigate and prosecute pricing decisions involving an 'essential good or service,' a definition that Lombardo said threatened to cripple a wide range of businesses. Notably, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, who presented the bill to lawmakers, is a Democratic candidate seeking to challenge Lombardo in 2026. When prices go up, whether it's eggs, gasoline or electricity, there is often a public outcry for government action. But Lombardo attacked the language of AB44 as subjective and a threat to free markets. JUNE 4: Lombardo vetoes 33 bills in days following Nevada Legislature, 229 signed HOA POWERS: Two bills that Lombardo vetoed involved HOAs. AB185 would have required HOAs to allow in-home daycare businesses to operate inside communities. Democrats who sponsored the bill said community rules were preventing more child care businesses from setting up. In his veto message on AB185, Lombardo said: 'It is important to note that people choose to live in HOA communities with the clear understanding that certain activities are governed by agreed-upon rules designed to protect the consistency of the neighborhood. AB 185 undermines that mutual understanding by allowing some owners to bypass long-standing community standards through legislative action.' Senate Bill 121 (SB121) was also rejected, with Lombardo stating that the choice to buy within an HOA community comes with responsibilities to maintain community standards. The bill would have limited landscaping and parking restrictions. It also would have given homeowners at least three years after purchase to bring landscaping up to community standards. The same bill would have prohibited fines for some oil stains. CAMPAIGN FUNDS: AB79 would have toughened restrictions on how campaign funds could be used and required reporting on how that money is spent. But Lombardo said he was vetoing it for other reasons. 'Though ensuring transparency in elections is an important goal, AB 79 contains provisions, some vague, that would make political involvement less feasible for many and lack sufficial judicial oversight,' according to his veto message. He said the bill needed to do a better job of defining what constitutes a 'spent' or 'unspent' contribution. PROTECTING PROSTITUTES: AB209 would have set up protections for sex workers meant to encourage them to report violent crimes. It hinged on the prostitute asking for medical attention. But Lombardo said the wording of the bill could create a loophole that gives them immunity for more than is intended. A sex worker could actually use a request for medical attention to invoke immunity. Further, AB209 undermines law enforcement and assumes police aren't trustworthy. ICE ACCESS IN SCHOOLS: Lawmakers sought to keep immigration enforcement out of schools, but Lombardo vetoed AB217. The bill would have prohibited school employees, public schools or school districts from allowing access for ICE agents. Lombard called it well-intentioned, but attacked it as an overreach on a number of levels, even saying the bill would make school grounds into 'sanctuary zones' 24 hours a day. SUMMARY EVICTIONS: AB283 would have changed the summary eviction process, requiring landlords to file the initial court complaint. Similar attempts during the 2023 legislative session were vetoed, and Lombardo held firm with a veto on Monday. He called it 'lopsided, red-tape laden' and predicted disastrous consequences on Nevada's housing market if it were to become law. EXECUTIONS IN NEVADA: SB350 would have extended the time frame for executing a prisoner who was sentenced to death from the current 90 days to a full year. The bill sponsor argued that 90 days wasn't enough time to properly challenge court rulings. 'Since rather than promoting fairness or finality, SB 350 threatens to undermine the very foundation of justice by creating endless delays that retraumatize victims' families and erode public confidence in our legal system, I cannot support it,' Lombardo said in his veto message. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
President Donald Trump pushes ahead with his maximalist immigration campaign in face of LA protests
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump made no secret of his willingness to exert a maximalist approach to enforcing immigration laws and keeping order as he campaigned to return to the White House. The fulfillment of that pledge is now on full display in Los Angeles. The president has put hundreds of National Guard troops on the streets to quell protests over his administration's immigration raids, a deployment that state and city officials say has only inflamed tensions. Trump called up the California National Guard over the objections of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom — the first time in 60 years a president has done so — and is deploying active-duty troops to support the guard. By overriding Newsom, Trump is already going beyond what he did to respond to Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, when he warned he could send troops to contain demonstrations that turned violent if governors in the states did not act to do so themselves. Trump said in September of that year that he 'can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor' and that 'we have to go by the laws.' But now, the past and current president is moving swiftly, with little internal restraint to test the bounds of his executive authority in order to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. What remains to be seen is whether Americans will stand by him once it's operationalized nationwide, as Trump looks to secure billions from Congress to dramatically expand the country's detention and deportation operations. For now, Trump is betting that they will. 'If we didn't do the job, that place would be burning down," Trump told reporters Monday, speaking about California. 'I feel we had no choice. ... I don't want to see what happened so many times in this country.' 'A crisis of Trump's own making' The protests began to unfold Friday as federal authorities arrested immigrants in several locations throughout the sprawling city, including in the fashion district of Los Angeles and at a Home Depot. The anger over the administration's actions quickly spread, with protests in Chicago and Boston as demonstrations in the southern California city also continued Monday. But Trump and other administration officials remained unbowed, capitalizing on the images of burning cars, graffiti and Mexican flags — which, while not dominant, started to become the defining images of the unrest — to bolster their law-and-order cause. Leaders in the country's most populous state were similarly defiant. California officials moved Monday to sue the Trump administration, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 2,000 that were authorized by Trump. The state's senior Democratic senator, Alex Padilla, said in an interview that 'this is absolutely a crisis of Trump's own making.' 'There are a lot of people who are passionate about speaking up for fundamental rights and respecting due process, but the deployment of National Guard only serves to escalate tensions and the situation,' Padilla told The Associated Press. 'It's exactly what Donald Trump wanted to do.' Padilla slammed the deployment as 'counterproductive' and said the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department was not advised ahead of the federalization of the National Guard. His office has also pushed the Pentagon for a justification on the deployment, and 'as far as we're told, the Department of Defense isn't sure what the mission is here," Padilla added. Candidate Trump previewed immigration strategy during campaign Much of this was predictable. During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to conduct the largest domestic deportation operation in American history to expel millions of immigrants in the country without legal status. He often praised President Dwight D. Eisenhower's military-style immigration raids, and the candidate and his advisers suggested they would have broad power to deploy troops domestically to enact Trump's far-reaching immigration and public safety goals. Trump's speedy deployment in California of troops against those whom the president has alluded to as 'insurrectionists' on social media is a sharp contrast to his decision to issue no order or formal request for National Guard troops during the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, despite his repeated and false assertions that he had made such an offer. Trump is now surrounded by officials who have no interest in constraining his power. In 2020, Trump's then-Pentagon chief publicly rebuked Trump's threat to send in troops using the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that empowers the president to use the military within the U.S. and against American citizens. Current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled support on his personal X account for deploying troops to California, writing, 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The Defense Department said Monday it is deploying about 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles to support National Guard troops already on the ground to respond to the protests. White House responds to an 'incompetent' governor Protesters over the weekend blocked off a major freeway and burned self-driving cars as police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades in clashes that encompassed several downtown blocks in Los Angeles and led to several dozen arrests. Much of the city saw no violence. But the protests prompted Trump to issue the directive Saturday mobilizing the California National Guard over Newsom's objections. The president and his top immigration aides accused the governor of mismanaging the protests, with border czar Tom Homan asserting in a Fox News interview Monday that Newsom stoked anti-ICE sentiments and waited two days to declare unlawful assembly in the city. Trump told Newsom in a phone call Friday evening to get the situation in Los Angeles under control, a White House official said. It was only when the administration felt Newsom was not restoring order in the city — and after Trump watched the situation escalate for 24 hours and White House officials saw imagery of federal law enforcement officers with lacerations and other injuries — that the president moved to deploy the Guard, according to the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. 'He's an incompetent governor,' Trump said Monday. 'Look at the job he's doing in California. He's destroying one of our great states.' Local law enforcement officials said Los Angeles police responded as quickly as they could once the protests erupted, and Newsom repeatedly asserted that state and city authorities had the situation under control. 'Los Angeles is no stranger to demonstrations and protests and rallies and marches,' Padilla said. 'Local law enforcement knows how to handle this and has a rapport with the community and community leaders to be able to allow for that.' The aggressive moves prompted blowback from some of Trump's erstwhile allies. Ileana Garcia, a Florida state senator who in 2016 founded the group Latinas for Trump and was hired to direct Latino outreach, called the recent escalation 'unacceptable and inhumane.' 'I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings — in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims — all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal," said Garcia, referring to Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and key architect of Trump's immigration crackdown. The tactics could be just a preview to what more could come from the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. GOP lawmakers are working to pass a massive tax-and-border package that includes billions to hire thousands of new officers for Border Patrol and for ICE. The goal, under the Trump-backed plan, is to remove 1 million immigrants without status annually and house 100,000 people in immigration detention centers.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Pentagon draws up rules on possible use of force by Marines deployed to LA protests
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil, now that the Trump administration is deploying active duty troops to the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. U.S. Northern Command said it is sending 700 Marines into the Los Angeles area to protect federal property and personnel, including federal immigration agents. The 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines are coming from Twentynine Palms, California, and will augment about 2,100 National Guard soldiers in LA responding to the protests. The forces have been trained in deescalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, Northern Command said. But the use of the active duty forces still raises difficult questions. The Marines are highly trained in combat and crisis response, with time in conflict zones like Syria and Afghanistan. But that is starkly different from the role they will face now: They could potentially be hit by protesters carrying gas canisters and have to quickly decide how to respond or face decisions about protecting an immigration enforcement agent from crowds. According to a U.S. official, troops will be armed with their normal service weapons but will not be carrying tear gas. They also will have protective equipment such as helmets, shields and gas masks. When troops are overseas, how they can respond to threats is outlined by the rules of engagement. At home, they are guided by standing rules for the use of force, which have to be set and agreed to by Northern Command, and then each Marine should receive a card explaining what they can and cannot do, another U.S. official said. For example, warning shots would be prohibited, according to use-of-force draft documents viewed by The Associated Press. Marines are directed to deescalate a situation whenever possible but also are authorized to act in self-defense, the documents say. The AP reviewed documents and interviewed nine U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet public, about the guidance being determined for the Marines. The Pentagon also is working on a memo with clarifying language for the Marines that will lay out the steps they can take to protect federal personnel and property. Those guidelines also will include specifics on the possibility that they could temporarily detain civilians if troops are under assault or to prevent harm, the first U.S. official said. Those measures could involve detaining civilians until they can be turned over to law enforcement. Having the Marines deploy to protect federal buildings allows them to be used without invoking the Insurrection Act, one U.S. official said. The Insurrection Act allows the president to direct federal troops to conduct law enforcement functions in national emergencies. But the use of that act is extremely rare. Officials said that has not yet been done in this case and that it's not clear it will be done. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. If their role expands if the violence escalates, it is not clear under what legal authority they would be able to engage, said Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law. 'If in fact those Marines are laying hands on civilians, doing searches, then you have pretty powerful legal concerns,' Goitein said. 'No statutory authority Trump has invoked so far permits this.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tweeted late Saturday that he was considering deploying the Marines to respond to the unrest after getting advice earlier in the day from Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to one of the U.S. officials. Still, the tweet, which was posted to Hegseth's personal X account and not to his official government account, caught many inside the Pentagon by surprise. As late as Monday, the military's highest offices were still considering the potential ramifications. But the Marine Corps were asking broader questions, too: Do they send more senior, experienced personnel so as not to put newer, less experienced troops at risk of potentially making a judgment call on whether to use force against a civilian? What's lawful under a domestic deployment — where troops may end up in a policing role — is governed by the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which forbids seizure of persons, including temporarily restraining them, unless it could be considered reasonable under the circumstances.
