Latest news with #PublicIntegritySection
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
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 moves appears to violate Justice Department policy. McIver was charged last month after a scuffle with Department of Homeland Security 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 DOJ. '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 last month during an appearance on CNN. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
4 days ago
- General
- The Hill
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.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The chilling problem with the decision to charge New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver
Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., a sitting member of Congress, was released on her own recognizance following a Wednesday hearing. She faces federal charges in connection with the assault of federal law enforcement officers outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. That she was arrested on these charges is rare, and perhaps without a historical analog. In the few instances in which the federal government has pursued charges against a current member of Congress, it is typically for a crime related to political corruption. There's little question, per video footage from the May 9 incident, that McIver was in the middle of a scrum of people seeking to stop the arrest of Newark's mayor, Ras J. Baraka, and enter the ICE facility. As a sitting member of Congress, McIver has the legal right to enter the facility, although she — of course — does not have the right to assault federal officers on the way in. But what people should know is that something is amiss with the decision to charge McIver. Before bringing charges against a sitting member of Congress, current, but paused, Department of Justice rules dictate that federal prosecutors confer with the Public Integrity Section. In addition, that section is supposed to sign off before charges are filled. But apparently none of that happened. Published reports indicate that members of the administration told the Public Integrity Section to halt its consultations with other federal prosecutors while they review DOJ rules. Here, we see members of the executive branch pausing the typical procedures meant to protect sitting members of the legislative branch. Part of what the Public Integrity Section does is ensure that if charges are brought against sitting members of Congress, they are brought for legal reasons, not political ones. Members of Congress serve as an important check against the executive; they should not be chilled into eschewing their oversight authority. Quite the opposite, members of the legislative branch must feel confident that they can carry out their functions as the leaders of a co-equal branch, and that political appointees will not weaponize the DOJ against them when they do. This is exactly what the Public Integrity Section was designed to guard against. Perhaps, if the Public Integrity Section were consulted, they would have pointed to a potential constitutional hurdle related to this prosecution. The 'speech or debate' clause in the Constitution is designed to support the independence of the legislative branch by giving members of Congress immunity from criminal or civil suit for actions taken while engaged in legislative activities, including oversight activities. The DOJ will almost certainly argue that McIver's behavior transgressed the bounds of legitimate legislative activities. The apparently paused DOJ rule which dictates that the Public Integrity Section be consulted prior to filing the type of charges filed against McIver, and the 'speech or debate' clause, both act as a bulwark against the prosecution of members of the Legislature for doing their jobs. The thing we should worry about is that the specter of being on the receiving end of a federal criminal complaint will chill the legitimate activities of the members of our legislative branch. We don't want a government designed to stand on three legs to end up teetering on two. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
DOJ may waive key review for elected officials' prosecutions
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering allowing prosecutors to bypass consultation with the Public Integrity Section as they pursue charges against elected officials. In doing so, the Trump administration would cut a key review from a team of prosecutors who specialize in bringing cases against public officials — a team also assembled to help ensure charges aren't brought for political reasons. The potential shift, however, comes at a time when Trump administration members have floated cases against several officials. A Justice Department official confirmed the move, saying it would be a shift from 'centralizing all authority' in the Public Integrity Section. 'Justice Manual provisions for several sections are under review. No final decisions have been made. The point of the review is to ensure that equal responsibility is held in the field,' they said. The Washington Post first reported the development. The potential change would leave U.S. attorneys across the country free to pursue cases against elected officials — and some Trump nominees have already threatened to do so. Ed Martin, who until last week served as the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, ignited an inquiry into Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for comments he made five years prior about Supreme Court justices. Martin similarly sent a letter to Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) after the lawmaker made comments about pushing back against Elon Musk. After key GOP opposition to his nomination to lead the office tanked his confirmation process, Martin has since been tapped to lead the department's Weaponization Working Group. And in New Jersey, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) was arrested and later charged with trespassing after a clash with immigration officials as lawmakers gathered to tour a new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. Trump officials have warned there could be charges for the three New Jersey Democrats present that day: Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Rob Menendez and LaMonica McIver. The three lawmakers said they did nothing wrong as they showed up for a tour, blaming ICE officials for escalating the situation. The Public Integrity Section has brought a number of cases against officials, though several have not scored conviction. The team recently helped bring charges against former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D). The case against Adams was later dismissed under the Trump administration, prompting a wave of resignations from the Public Integrity Section. Federal prosecutors have also lost high-profile cases against elected officials, like those into former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), with the conviction in the latter case overturned by the Supreme Court. Updated at 11:03 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
DOJ may wave key review for elected officials' prosecutions
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is considering allowing prosecutors to bypass consultation with the Public Integrity Section as they pursue charges against elected officials. In doing so, the Trump administration would cut a key review from a team of prosecutors who specialize in bringing cases against public officials — a team also assembled to help ensure charges aren't brought for political reasons. The potential shift, however, comes at a time when Trump administration members have floated cases against several officials. A Justice Department official confirmed the move, saying it would be a shift from 'centralizing all authority' in the Public Integrity Section. 'Justice Manual provisions for several sections are under review. No final decisions have been made. The point of the review is to ensure that equal responsibility is held in the field,' they said. The Washington Post first reported the development. Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here The potential change would leave U.S. attorneys across the country free to pursue cases against elected officials — and some Trump nominees have already threatened to do so. Ed Martin, who until last week served as the interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., ignited an inquiry into Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for comments he made five years prior about Supreme Court justices. Martin similarly sent a letter to Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) after the lawmaker made comments about pushing back against Elon Musk. And in New Jersey, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) was arrested and later charged with trespassing after a clash with immigration officials as lawmakers gathered to tour a new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. Trump officials have warned there could be charges for the three New Jersey Democrats present that day: Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Rob Menendez and LaMonica McIver. The three lawmakers said they did nothing wrong as they showed up for a tour, blaming ICE officials for escalating the situation. The Public Integrity Section has brought a number of cases against officials, though several have not scored conviction. The team recently helped bring charges against former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and New York Mayor Eric Adams (D). The case against Adams was later dismissed under the Trump administration, prompting a wave of resignations from the Public Integrity Section. Federal prosecutors have also lost high-profile cases against elected officials, like those into former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) and former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), with the conviction in the latter case overturned by the Supreme Court.
