Latest news with #2025ConservativePoliticalActionConference
Newsweek
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Steve Bannon Suffers Legal Setback
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former White House adviser Steve Bannon has suffered a legal setback after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied his request to consider vacating his contempt of Congress conviction. Bannon began a four-month prison sentence on July 1, 2024, after he was found guilty in 2022 of two counts of contempt of Congress for failing to respond to a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot at the Capitol. He was released in October. Newsweek has contacted Bannon's legal team via email outside of regular office hours. Steve Bannon at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., on Friday, February 21, 2025. Steve Bannon at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., on Friday, February 21, 2025. Annabelle Gordon/CNP/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images Why It Matters After President Donald Trump's decided to pardon or commute the sentences of nearly 1,600 January 6 Capitol rioters, Bannon was looking to expunge his record. What To Know Bannon, who was an adviser to President Trump in the first year of his first term, was charged with contempt of Congress after failing to appear for a deposition and refusing to produce documents that were requested by the House Select Committee. Bannon appealed the charges several times. The Supreme Court denied his request to stave off his sentence, resulting in him serving his prison sentence in full in 2024. His request for the D.C. Circuit Court to vacate his charges stems from his argument that his refusal to comply with his subpoena was not done "willfully," and that he only defied the subpoena at the request of his legal representation who warned that complying would result in exposing privileged information. He also argued that Congress would have been more harsh on him if he had appeared but refused to answer questions, instead of failing to appear at all. Five circuit court judges did not agree with this argument, with Judge Brad Garcia writing: "As Bannon sees it, then, a conviction for failing to appear at all would require a showing of bad faith, but a conviction for appearing and refusing to answer relevant questions would not. I am skeptical that Congress intended to enact such a scheme. Imagine a witness who genuinely believed his lawyer's advice that a privilege justified refusing to testify on subjects listed in a subpoena. "On Bannon's reading, that witness could not be convicted if he declined to appear before a congressional committee altogether. Yet he could be convicted if he appeared but declined to answer specific questions based on the same advice. That construction makes little sense." The dissenting judges argued that Bannon's interpretation of "willfully" is an important legal question, and said that Bannon was protecting documents from the White House covered by executive privilege—the ability for someone within the executive branch to withhold confidential information from Congress—when refusing the subpoena. Bannon has already been pardoned by Trump in the last days of his first term in 2021 over the former's fraud charges, for which he was awaiting trial. He was set to go to court over allegedly defrauding donors for Trump's 2016 "We Build the Wall" campaign. The 2021 presidential pardon only covered his federal charges. In February 2025, Bannon pleaded guilty to his New York State charge of defrauding donors who gave money toward building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. Bannon was found to have diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors to associates. Bannon's plea deal resulted in him avoiding jail time. Steve Bannon pleads guilty to a fraud charge related to the 'We Build the Wall" scheme, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, at the state court in New York. Steve Bannon pleads guilty to a fraud charge related to the 'We Build the Wall" scheme, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, at the state court in New York. Curtis Means/Pool Photo via AP What People Are Saying DC Circuit Judge Brad Garcia's concurring remarks: "Bannon has not tenably explained why Congress would pass a law that encourages less-cooperative conduct. His reading is especially perplexing given that the purpose of the contempt-of-Congress statute is to facilitate congressional arguments support the long-settled interpretation of "willfully" in this statute. And Bannon's reading is not necessary to give that term meaning. Those considerations further support our denial of rehearing en banc." DC Circuit Judge Neomi Rao for the dissent: "Stephen Bannon, a former advisor to President Donald Trump, invoked executive privilege and refused to comply with a legislative subpoena seeking information about the events of January 6. He was convicted of criminal contempt of Congress and imprisoned. A panel of this court affirmed Bannon's convictions. I would grant rehearing en banc because Bannon's petition raises questions of exceptional importance." What Happens Next Bannon has served his time in prison for these charges and will not be serving time for his separate guilty plea from earlier in 2025.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's tariffs ‘upend constitutional order' and harm state economies, Dem AGs allege
President Donald Trump speaking at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, on Feb. 22, 2025. (Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0) A dozen Democratic attorneys general, led by the AGs in Arizona and Oregon, filed a lawsuit Wednesday arguing that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs were illegally implemented and will cause irreparable harm to their constituents. In the 38-page filing, attorneys general for Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont urged the U.S. Court of International Trade to find that the president's tariffs were issued illegally. In the past three months, Trump has at various times declared and withdrawn the financial penalties on multiple countries. For now, the White House has settled on a 145% tariff on most products imported from China, 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods and 10% base tariffs on the rest of the world. Another 57 countries were subject to 'reciprocal' tariffs that were actually based on trade deficits, not existing tariffs that those countries had applied to American goods. The attorneys general argued that the whiplash of constantly changing tariff rates has injected uncertainty into the country's economy and said the president's misuse of his strictly defined powers violates the U.S. Constitution. 'These edicts reflect a national trade policy that now hinges on the President's whims rather than the sound exercise of his lawful authority,' reads the lawsuit. 'By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses, for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency, the President has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.' Arizona AG Kris Mayes, who has mobilized her office to challenge the federal government's actions in thirteen different lawsuits, called the tariffs 'economically reckless' in a news conference announcing the latest lawsuit. 'As Arizona's chief law enforcement officer, I will not stand by while the federal government imposes policies that harm our economy, violates the constitution and ignores the limits of executive power,' she said. 'This lawsuit is about protecting Arizonans and businesses large and small, it is about defending our constitutional system and reminding this administration, yet again, that no one — not even the president of the United States — is above the law.' The attorneys general argue that only Congress has the power to impose tariffs, and that Trump's bid to circumvent that by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is unlawful. The act, they wrote, makes no mention of tariffs, and only empowers the president to regulate, investigate or block trade while an investigation is ongoing. And, they argue, the requirements for Trump to act during peacetime haven't been met. The act grants the president the ability to regulate trade between the United States and other countries if there is an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' that poses a risk to national security, foreign policy or the country's economy. To satisfy that, Trump has justified his tariffs by accusing Canada and Mexico of not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl and China of failing to intercept the chemical precursors that are used to manufacture fentanyl. And while Trump relied on IEEPA to greenlight 10% tariffs against the rest of the world, he provided no reasoning that might comply with the act's requirements. The lawsuit also notes that applying tariffs to every product from Canada, Mexico and China violates IEEPA, because not every product that is imported from those countries is related to the president's purported goal of addressing the fentanyl crisis. 'The Plaintiff states agree that the fentanyl crisis requires urgent government action, but the imposition of tariffs is neither an effective nor a lawful response to that crisis,' the AGs wrote in the lawsuit. 'The (tariff orders for China, Mexico and Canada) lacks any rationale for the tariff rates imposed and bears no relationship between the goods subject to the Order and the claimed emergency.' During Wednesday's news conference, Mayes highlighted the damage the tariffs risk causing to the Grand Canyon State's business community and government agencies. The Democrat, who previously served on the Arizona Corporation Commission, said she has discussed the possibility of increased rates with utility companies in the state, and while they haven't committed to avoiding doing so, they also haven't ruled them out. Mayes pointed out that some utility companies depend on lumber from Canada to erect telephone poles, and others use solar panels, which are largely made in China, or transformers, which come from Europe, China and South America. Likewise, the Arizona Department of Transportation is already seeing prices rise, and Mayes said that will ultimately increase the cost of highway and road construction. Bill Sandweg, the owner of Copper Star Coffee in central Phoenix, said that his business depends on ingredients that are grown in other countries, with climates that cannot be replicated in the United States, and specialty equipment that isn't manufactured in the country. He said that he buys around $5,000 worth of spices from India every year, but the new tariffs have increased that cost to $7,500. Sandweg called the tariffs 'taxation without representation' and warned that, if they aren't reduced, his costs will eventually be transferred to consumers. This isn't the first lawsuit the White House has had to contend with in the wake of its tariff policies. Last week, California launched its own legal challenge in federal court that similarly attacked the president's use of his emergency powers to impose tariffs. And a Florida woman who owns a stationary business went to court to contest the fact that her voice, and those of other U.S. citizens, was ignored because the tariffs weren't subject to congressional debate. A group of small businesses also filed a lawsuit against Trump's use of the IEEPA in the U.S. Court of International Trade on April 14. On Wednesday, a panel of judges overseeing the case decided against freezing the tariffs while litigation continues. A hearing is scheduled on May 13 for the court to consider the issue. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's tariffs 'upend constitutional order' and harm state economies, Dem AGs allege
President Donald Trump speaking at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, on Feb. 22, 2025. Photo by Gage Skidmore | Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0 A dozen Democratic attorneys general, led by the AGs in Arizona and Oregon, filed a lawsuit Wednesday arguing that President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs were illegally implemented and will cause irreparable harm to their constituents. In the 38-page filing, attorneys general for Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont urged the U.S. Court of International Trade to find that the president's tariffs were issued illegally. In the past three months, Trump has at various times declared and withdrawn the financial penalties on multiple countries. For now, the White House has settled on a 145% tariff on most products imported from China, 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods and 10% base tariffs on the rest of the world. Another 57 countries were subject to 'reciprocal' tariffs that were actually based on trade deficits, not existing tariffs that those countries had applied to American goods. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The attorneys general argued that the whiplash of constantly changing tariff rates has injected uncertainty into the country's economy and said the president's misuse of his strictly defined powers violates the U.S. Constitution. 'These edicts reflect a national trade policy that now hinges on the President's whims rather than the sound exercise of his lawful authority,' reads the lawsuit. 'By claiming the authority to impose immense and ever-changing tariffs on whatever goods entering the United States he chooses, for whatever reason he finds convenient to declare an emergency, the President has upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy.' Arizona AG Kris Mayes, who has mobilized her office to challenge the federal government's actions in thirteen different lawsuits, called the tariffs 'economically reckless' in a news conference announcing the latest lawsuit. 'As Arizona's chief law enforcement officer, I will not stand by while the federal government imposes policies that harm our economy, violates the constitution and ignores the limits of executive power,' she said. 'This lawsuit is about protecting Arizonans and businesses large and small, it is about defending our constitutional system and reminding this administration, yet again, that no one — not even the president of the United States — is above the law.' The attorneys general argue that only Congress has the power to impose tariffs, and that Trump's bid to circumvent that by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is unlawful. The act, they wrote, makes no mention of tariffs, and only empowers the president to regulate, investigate or block trade while an investigation is ongoing. With markets cratering, Trump backs down on tariffs with 90-day pause on most And, they argue, the requirements for Trump to act during peacetime haven't been met. The act grants the president the ability to regulate trade between the United States and other countries if there is an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' that poses a risk to national security, foreign policy or the country's economy. To satisfy that, Trump has justified his tariffs by accusing Canada and Mexico of not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl and China of failing to intercept the chemical precursors that are used to manufacture fentanyl. And while Trump relied on IEEPA to greenlight 10% tariffs against the rest of the world, he provided no reasoning that might comply with the act's requirements. The lawsuit also notes that applying tariffs to every product from Canada, Mexico and China violates IEEPA, because not every product that is imported from those countries is related to the president's purported goal of addressing the fentanyl crisis. 'The Plaintiff states agree that the fentanyl crisis requires urgent government action, but the imposition of tariffs is neither an effective nor a lawful response to that crisis,' the AGs wrote in the lawsuit. 'The (tariff orders for China, Mexico and Canada) lacks any rationale for the tariff rates imposed and bears no relationship between the goods subject to the Order and the claimed emergency.' During Wednesday's news conference, Mayes highlighted the damage the tariffs risk causing to the Grand Canyon State's business community and government agencies. The Democrat, who previously served on the Arizona Corporation Commission, said she has discussed the possibility of increased rates with utility companies in the state, and while they haven't committed to avoiding doing so, they also haven't ruled them out. Mayes pointed out that some utility companies depend on lumber from Canada to erect telephone poles, and others use solar panels, which are largely made in China, or transformers, which come from Europe, China and South America. Likewise, the Arizona Department of Transportation is already seeing prices rise, and Mayes said that will ultimately increase the cost of highway and road construction. Bill Sandweg, the owner of Copper Star Coffee in central Phoenix, said that his business depends on ingredients that are grown in other countries, with climates that cannot be replicated in the United States, and specialty equipment that isn't manufactured in the country. He said that he buys around $5,000 worth of spices from India every year, but the new tariffs have increased that cost to $7,500. Sandweg called the tariffs 'taxation without representation' and warned that, if they aren't reduced, his costs will eventually be transferred to consumers. This isn't the first lawsuit the White House has had to contend with in the wake of its tariff policies. Last week, California launched its own legal challenge in federal court that similarly attacked the president's use of his emergency powers to impose tariffs. And a Florida woman who owns a stationary business went to court to contest the fact that her voice, and those of other U.S. citizens, was ignored because the tariffs weren't subject to congressional debate. A group of small businesses also filed a lawsuit against Trump's use of the IEEPA in the U.S. Court of International Trade on April 14. On Wednesday, a panel of judges overseeing the case decided against freezing the tariffs while litigation continues. A hearing is scheduled on May 13 for the court to consider the issue. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Elon Musk invades Wisconsin
Elon Musk and President of Argentina Javier Milei speaking at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland. | Photo by Gage Skidmore Fresh from spending nearly $300 million to influence the 2024 elections, the richest person in the world has set his sights squarely on Wisconsin. Elon Musk is apparently not content with taking a chainsaw to the lives of thousands of hard-working federal employees engaged in providing health care to rural American children and veterans, with slashing Medicaid for millions of our most vulnerable citizens, with cutting projects seeking desperately needed cures for cancer, Ebola and other deadly diseases and with eviscerating foreign assistance that thousands of people all over the world rely on for survival. Musk is now also carpet bombing Wisconsin with millions of dollars for negative ads and cash infusions to influence the outcome of the upcoming April 1 election to fill an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. After 30 years of distinguished service, the Court's most senior justice, Ann Walsh Bradley announced her retirement last year. Now, with the fast-approaching election to determine her successor in just a matter of days, voters will decide the ideological composition of the majority on the court and therefore the future direction of Wisconsin and quite possibly the nation. In January, when Musk announced he was invading our state, he falsely proclaimed on Twitter: 'Very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud.' He's wrong on all counts. In the first place, candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court don't run for election with party labels. Our judicial elections are nonpartisan – at least they are supposed to be. Secondly, voting fraud does not occur in our state because we have long had strong safeguards in place to prevent it. Voting fraud is a complete and total non-issue in Wisconsin and a distraction from real and serious attacks on democracy such as ongoing voter suppression proposals and laws that already make it more difficult to vote here than previously. But the unelected Musk, whose craving for national attention and power rivals that of his partner Donald Trump, has a direct financial interest in a matter that could end up before the state's high court. Wisconsin is one of nearly half the states in the nation that prohibit auto manufacturers from being able to directly sell their vehicles to the public because it would provide those manufacturers with a competitive advantage over independent dealers. Musk's car company, Tesla, has sought and been refused an exemption to the law by state courts, most recently in December. A sympathetic Wisconsin Supreme Court influenced by Musk's heavy spending in the current election – already well over $12 million and rising — is in his crosshairs as well as enhanced overall political influence and power beyond our state. In a campaign that is already the most expensive judicial election anywhere in the nation in U.S. history, Musk may end up as the single largest campaign spender through his 'Building America's Future' Super PAC and other avenues to influence the outcome in Wisconsin with his limitless out-of-state millions. How much will he spend? No one knows. But it is very important that Wisconsinites know that Musk has quickly emerged as the single most dominant source of campaign cash and political influence in this election and in our state. It will be up to Wisconsinites to decide if they approve or not of this unelected richest person in the world buying control of our highest court while at the same time continuing his unprecedented destruction of so many vital national services and safeguards Wisconsinites depend on. The voters of Wisconsin can prevail over Musk and his millions by turning out in force – by returning their absentee ballots in time to be counted, or by showing up and voting early in person or at their polling place on the first day of April – Election Day. At the ballot box, each of us still has more voice and control over our destiny than even the richest person in the world who can't vote here and who knows and cares little or nothing about Wisconsin other than as a place for him to sell more Teslas and ruin more lives. On the evening of March 6 Musk's multimillion dollar Space X Starship exploded in the skies over the coast of Florida shortly after it was launched. Thank goodness no lives were lost but it was nonetheless a spectacular failure. The April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election could be another spectacular failure for Musk and his gargantuan bankroll. It is entirely in the hands of Wisconsin voters to decide. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Elon Musk invades Wisconsin
Elon Musk and President of Argentina Javier Milei speaking at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland. | Photo by Gage Skidmore Fresh from spending nearly $300 million to influence the 2024 elections, the richest person in the world has set his sights squarely on Wisconsin. Elon Musk is apparently not content with taking a chainsaw to the lives of thousands of hard-working federal employees engaged in providing health care to rural American children and veterans, with slashing Medicaid for millions of our most vulnerable citizens, with cutting projects seeking desperately needed cures for cancer, Ebola and other deadly diseases and with eviscerating foreign assistance that thousands of people all over the world rely on for survival. Musk is now also carpet bombing Wisconsin with millions of dollars for negative ads and cash infusions to influence the outcome of the upcoming April 1 election to fill an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. After 30 years of distinguished service, the Court's most senior justice, Ann Walsh Bradley announced her retirement last year. Now, with the fast-approaching election to determine her successor in just a matter of days, voters will decide the ideological composition of the majority on the court and therefore the future direction of Wisconsin and quite possibly the nation. In January, when Musk announced he was invading our state, he falsely proclaimed on Twitter: 'Very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud.' He's wrong on all counts. In the first place, candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court don't run for election with party labels. Our judicial elections are nonpartisan – at least they are supposed to be. Secondly, voting fraud does not occur in our state because we have long had strong safeguards in place to prevent it. Voting fraud is a complete and total non-issue in Wisconsin and a distraction from real and serious attacks on democracy such as ongoing voter suppression proposals and laws that already make it more difficult to vote here than previously. But the unelected Musk, whose craving for national attention and power rivals that of his partner Donald Trump, has a direct financial interest in a matter that could end up before the state's high court. Wisconsin is one of nearly half the states in the nation that prohibit auto manufacturers from being able to directly sell their vehicles to the public because it would provide those manufacturers with a competitive advantage over independent dealers. Musk's car company, Tesla, has sought and been refused an exemption to the law by state courts, most recently in December. A sympathetic Wisconsin Supreme Court influenced by Musk's heavy spending in the current election – already well over $12 million and rising — is in his crosshairs as well as enhanced overall political influence and power beyond our state. In a campaign that is already the most expensive judicial election anywhere in the nation in U.S. history, Musk may end up as the single largest campaign spender through his 'Building America's Future' Super PAC and other avenues to influence the outcome in Wisconsin with his limitless out-of-state millions. How much will he spend? No one knows. But it is very important that Wisconsinites know that Musk has quickly emerged as the single most dominant source of campaign cash and political influence in this election and in our state. It will be up to Wisconsinites to decide if they approve or not of this unelected richest person in the world buying control of our highest court while at the same time continuing his unprecedented destruction of so many vital national services and safeguards Wisconsinites depend on. The voters of Wisconsin can prevail over Musk and his millions by turning out in force – by returning their absentee ballots in time to be counted, or by showing up and voting early in person or at their polling place on the first day of April – Election Day. At the ballot box, each of us still has more voice and control over our destiny than even the richest person in the world who can't vote here and who knows and cares little or nothing about Wisconsin other than as a place for him to sell more Teslas and ruin more lives. On the evening of March 6 Musk's multimillion dollar Space X Starship exploded in the skies over the coast of Florida shortly after it was launched. Thank goodness no lives were lost but it was nonetheless a spectacular failure. The April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election could be another spectacular failure for Musk and his gargantuan bankroll. It is entirely in the hands of Wisconsin voters to decide. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
