Latest news with #JudiciaryCommittee
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Senate Republicans hold hearing on Biden's mental fitness as Democrats boycott
WASHINGTON — Nearly six months after Joe Biden left the White House, Senate Republicans are still scrutinizing his presidency, kicking off the first in what's expected to be a series of congressional hearings this year on his mental fitness in office. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee brought in three witnesses Wednesday — none of whom served in Biden's administration — to scrutinize his time in office, arguing that Biden, his staff and the media must be held accountable. Democrats boycotted the hearing and criticized Republicans for 'arm chair diagnosing' Biden when the committee could be looking into serious matters.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
New R.I. Senate leaders push revised ban on assault-style weapons to Senate floor
New Senate President Valarie J. Lawson, who also leads the National Education Association Rhode Island, and new Senate Majority Leader Frank A. Ciccone III, a licensed gun dealer, used their power to vote in any committee, and backed the bill. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Senate Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz, a North Smithfield Republican, and Minority Whip Gordon E. Rogers, a Foster Republican, also used their ex officio powers, voting against the bill. Advertisement The 10-member Judiciary Committee had been seen as evenly split on the issue. But Senator John P. Burke, a West Warwick Democrat , voted for the bill, defying expectations. The revised gun bill has drawn support from Everytown for Gun Safety leaders, who have said, 'Compromise is a part of public policy progress, and the amended version of this bill is still a massive step forward.' But it has drawn criticism from the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, which issued a statement Wednesday and said it remains 'deeply disappointed' in the 'weakened' ban on assault-style weapons and favors the House-passed bill. Advertisement Senator Dawn Euer, a Newport Democrat, voted for the bill in the Judiciary Committee, and said she has prepared floor amendments that would restore the bill to the House-passed version. The vote had been seen as a test for both Lawson and Ciccone, who has opposed prior gun bills and has said he sells a small numbers to friends and family. On May 20, the state Ciccone, a Providence Democrat, is one of 99 federal firearms license holders in Rhode Island who would be affected by a proposed ban on assault-style weapons. The Ethics Commission voted 8 to 1 for an advisory opinion that says Ciccone falls under the ethics code's 'class exception,' which says public officials don't have a conflict of interest if legislation would not help or hurt them any more than any other member of a business, profession, or group. Senator Leonidas P. Raptakis, a Coventry Democrat, voted against the bill in committee, saying, 'I need to emphasize my disgust that we are once again abridging our Second Amendment rights for all Rhode Islanders. No form of firearms ban is acceptable under the guise of making us safer.' Raptakis predicted the residents will be less safe 'because law-abiding citizens will not be able to buy weapons to defend themselves next year.' The Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, which emphasized that it's the only Rhode Island-based gun control advocacy group, asked advocates to ask senators to support the version of the bill passed by the House. Advertisement 'Our No. 1 goal is to keep Rhode Islanders as safe as possible from preventable gun violence,' coalition Executive Director Melissa Carden said in a statement. And she said the House-passed bill was the 'result of years of collaboration of gun safety advocates and legislators getting to the best bill possible.' 'At a time when the federal government is rolling back gun safety measures across the board, the states need to do all they can to make sure our communities and families are safe,' Carden said. She noted that Attorney General Peter F. Neronha had backed the House-passed bill and said he would defend it in court. On Bluesky, Providence resident Suzanne Ellis Wernevi asked Neronha to weigh in on the revised gun bill. Neronha replied, 'It's an approach followed by some states like Washington. We haven't looked at it carefully. I support the version passed by the House, which we studied carefully and participated in the drafting of, and which best preserves public safety.' House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi, a Warwick Democrat, issued a statement, and said, 'I am withholding comment until the entire Senate considers the bill. The final bill is subject to change on the Senate floor, so it would be premature to comment at this time.' Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
NBC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- NBC News
Sen. Mike Lee deletes social media posts about the Minnesota shootings after facing criticism
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, removed posts on his personal X account about Saturday's fatal attack on a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband after he faced fierce backlash from Democrats. Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., who was friends with the slain lawmaker, told reporters Monday that she confronted Lee about his post. 'I needed him to hear from me directly what impact I think his cruel statement had on me, his colleague,' she said. Lee had written in one post about the Saturday assassination of Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, that 'this is what happens When Marxists don't get their way.' In another, he posted a photo of the suspect and captioned it "Nightmare on Waltz Street," an apparent reference to Democratic Gov. Tim Walz. Several Democrats had called on Lee to take down the posts, which he'd published Saturday and Sunday. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said at a news conference Tuesday that he asked Lee to remove them and that "he wouldn't listen to me." Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., told reporters she also spoke to Lee about his posts, but she declined to divulge details of their conversation. 'Sen. Lee and I had a good discussion, and I'm very glad he took it down,' said Klobuchar, who has a relationship with Lee from years of working together on the Judiciary Committee. Smith said Tuesday she was "glad" the posts were removed, "but I haven't heard anything from him about why he took them down, and I certainly didn't hear an apology." Some of Lee's posts were still visible Tuesday afternoon, including one from Saturday night that said, 'Marxism kills.' On Lee's official Senate X account, his posts struck a different tone. "These hateful attacks have no place in Utah, Minnesota, or anywhere in America. Please join me in condemning this senseless violence, and praying for the victims and their families," he wrote. Prosecutors said the suspect, Vance Boelter, is also responsible for the nonfatal shooting of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said Boelter's car had notebooks with the names of more than 45 state and federal elected officials, and the federal criminal complaint against him says officials named in the notebooks were 'mostly or all Democrats.' Lee did not answer NBC News' questions about the posts Monday, and his office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about why they were taken down Tuesday. Smith spoke to Lee on Monday and later told reporters she'd felt compelled to confront him about the posts. 'I wanted him to know how much pain that caused me and the other people in my state and I think around the country who think that this was a brutal attack,' Smith told reporters in the Capitol. Smith's deputy chief of staff, Ed Shelleby, also lambasted the posts in an email to Lee's office shared with NBC News. 'Is this how your team measures success? Using the office of US Senator to post not just one but a series of jokes about an assassination—is that a successful day of work on Team Lee?" Shelleby wrote. Dareh Gregorian Dareh Gregorian is a politics reporter for NBC News. Brennan Leach, Sahil Kapur, Gabrielle Khoriaty, Kyle Stewart and Amanda Terkel contributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump pardons cost victims, taxpayers $1.3 billion, House Democrats' review says
President Trump's flurry of recent presidential pardons has cost crime victims and taxpayers approximately $1.3 billion in restitution and payments, according to a review by House Judiciary Democrats. The pardons absolved hundreds of convicted criminals from having to pay for damages and restitution caused by their crimes. Victims have not been made whole, the Democrats said — including U.S. taxpayers who must now foot the bill for the millions of dollars in repairs and cleanup from the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol. The Judiciary Committee Democrats' investigation, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, also cited several multi-million dollar restitution payments that were cancelled by Trump's recent pardons. The committee's review said, "with a far greater financial effect, President Trump's pardon spree has also swept in big-time corporate fraudsters, millionaire tax evaders, and other white-collar criminals. Thanks to President Trump's pardons, these convicted criminals now get to keep $1.3 billion in ill-gotten gains they stole from their victims and American taxpayers." The Judiciary Committee Democrats said Mr. Trump's pardons absolved restitution payments to victims by Todd Chrisley, a former reality TV show star pardoned last month. Chrisley, who was freed from a 12-year prison sentence for tax and bank fraud, had been ordered make $17.7 million in restitution payments. Chrisley had denied all charges brought against him. The president's commutation of former media mogul Carlos Watson not only spared Watson from a 9-year prison term, but also freed Watson from $36.7 million in restitution payments to investors he defrauded when he misrepresented the financial health of his digital start-up, Ozy Media. Watson had pleaded not guilty to all charges. Mr. Trump's commutation of Watson used language that mirrored the orders used in other orders of clemency. The commutation commanded, "An immediate commutation of his entire sentence to time served, with no further fines, restitution, probation or other conditions." The same language, cancelling any further restitution payments, was used in Trump's issuance of clemency to Lawrence Duran, the former owner of a Miami health care company who pleaded guilty to a $205 million Medicare fraud scheme. According to the House Judiciary Committee Democrats' report, the clemency endangered as much as $87 million in restitution payments. The report said Trump's decision to relieve the convicted criminals of their restitution requirements was damaging to the victims and to the uniquely American system of presidential pardons. "A president always has the option of issuing a conditional pardon that requires the pardon applicant to pay all restitution in order to receive the full benefits of the pardon," the report said. White House spokesman Harrison Fields responded Monday to the House Democrats' report in a statement: "President Trump is righting the wrongs of political prosecutions and providing justice after careful consideration of thoroughly vetted cases presented to him." He also said Democrats "were conveniently silent" when President Biden "pardoned his tax-cheating son, and they have no standing to cry foul now." The White House also said some of the pardons helped save taxpayer money needed to imprison some criminal defendants. The report cited CBS News' reporting showing only a fraction of the restitution payments were collected from Capitol rioters before the president's controversial Inauguration-Day pardons and commutations of Jan. 6 rioters. Only 15% of the $3 million in damages to the Capitol complex was recovered through restitution payments by Capitol riot defendants when the president issued the widespread pardons, absolving further payments. Some of the convicted rioters have recently sought reimbursement for their restitution payments, citing the president's pardons. Restitution payments were a standard component of Justice Department sentencing recommendations in Jan. 6 cases, with $2,000 payments sought from felony defendants and $500 payments sought for misdemeanor defendants. But Mr. Trump's newly appointed Justice Department officials are not challenging some of the requests for reimbursements from riot defendants. The report also cited fine payments from pardoned criminals. In the case of Scott Jenkins, a former Culpeper County, Virginia, sheriff who was convicted by a jury for a bribery scheme, the report said a $600 fine payment was absolved by the pardon. Jenkins, a longtime vocal Trump surrogate, was pardoned a day before he was scheduled to report to prison for a brazen scheme in which he took cash bribes in exchange for badges. Some of the bribe payments were captured on video and shown to jurors who promptly convicted Jenkins in December. Sneak peek: The Troubled Case Against Jane Dorotik American stranded in Israel with her family speaks out amid airstrike exchanges with Iran Appeals court hearing on California lawsuit against Trump's National Guard deployment to L.A.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ban on state seizure of Wabanaki land passes Legislature, but likely to be vetoed
William Nicholas, chief of the Passamoquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, testifies in support of prohibiting eminent domain on tribal lands before the Judiciary Committee on April 4. (Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) Legislation that would prevent the state from being able to seize tribal land for public use passed with bipartisan support in the Maine Legislature Friday, winning over many Republicans who generally were less supportive of previous attempts to provide the Wabanaki Nations greater sovereignty. However, initial votes show that support may not be enough to override an expected veto from Gov. Janet Mills. With 11 Republicans joining the Democratic majority, the Maine House of Representatives voted 86-60 on Friday in favor of the bill, preceded by ample debate. The Senate followed suit with a 20-12 vote but no discussion. However, a two-thirds vote in both chambers would be needed to override a veto. LD 958, which has bipartisan co-sponsors and received a favorable committee vote, would prohibit the state from exercising something called eminent domain on current trust and reservation land. 'This is an issue that small government conservatives and civil justice liberals can agree on,' bill sponsor House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor) told Maine Morning Star. However, others in his caucus spoke against the bill during floor debate, highlighting that their opposition to this issue is attached to their overall opposition to tribal sovereignty efforts. 'I cannot support this measure because I believe the issue is an issue to some degree less about eminent domain than it is about tribal sovereignty,' Rep. Ken Fredette (R-Newport) said. Fredette went on to compare the Wabanaki Nations to states and municipalities. Governor opposed to latest change to Settlement Act backed by Wabanaki Nations 'Our states are not absolute sovereign from our federal government,' Fredette said. 'Our towns are not absolute sovereign from the state in and the reality is that the tribes are not absolutely sovereign from the state of Maine.' Most other federally recognized tribes are already afforded protection against states being able to seize tribal land for public use. However, the Wabanaki Nations are not, due to repercussions from the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act. This land settlement agreement has resulted in the tribes being treated more akin to municipalities than sovereign nations like other federally recognized tribes. Overhauling this act in its entirety is the Wabanaki Nations' broader goal for greater recognition of their sovereignty. The U.S. government can seize private property for public use, a principle known as eminent domain, however that authority is restricted by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires just compensation for land taken, as well as some federal laws. In 1834, the federal Indian Nonintercourse Act prohibited land transactions with tribes unless authorized by Congress, but the Settlement Act specified that that federal law was not applicable to the Wabanaki Nations. 'As an ardent supporter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights I stand opposed to the government taking people's property through eminent domain,' Faulkingham said. 'It is even more egregious to threaten seizure of property from sovereign tribes who have suffered from historic injustices of land seizures in the past.' LD 958 would amend the Settlement Act to prohibit the state from exercising eminent domain on trust and reservation land, which is protected under federal law, though fee land — or private property for which the owner owns the title — would still be subject to the state taking. The bill would also amend the 2023 Mi'kmaq Nation Restoration Act to make this change for the fourth Tribe of the Wabanaki Nations, the Mi'kmaq Nation, which wasn't included in the Settlement Act. 'I feel like this is a no brainer,' Executive Director of the Wabanaki Alliance Maulian Bryant told Maine Morning Star. 'We should have tribal land protected from state seizure, just like other tribes around the country.' Throughout committee consideration of the bill, it was amended to incorporate a proposed change from the Maine State Chamber of Commerce that the prohibition would only apply to current reservation and trust lands, and not land that may be put into trust in the future. Each of the Wabanaki Nations are eligible to acquire up to 150,000 acres of trust land in specific areas identified in the Settlement Act. Several tribes have already acquired most of that. While the Judiciary Committee accepted that amendment, Passamaquoddy Tribal Rep. Aaron Dana, who is on the committee, told Maine Morning Star that some tribal leaders believed that compromise shouldn't have been made. 'We don't want to keep negotiating away everything,' Dana said. 'We've been negotiating everything away since the 1980s.' 'What we don't know is what we don't know,' Fredette said on the floor. 'Would we, as a state, for the best interest of the state, require a sliver of a piece of land? I don't know the answer to that.' Fredette repeated many of the same talking points that the governor's counsel, Jerry Reid, told the Judiciary Committee during a work session in which he shared that Mills is opposed to the bill. After not testifying during the bill's public hearing, Reid said on April 9 that Mills is concerned the bill could prevent the state government from addressing unpredictable future infrastructure needs, an issue also raised in written testimony from the Maine Department of Transportation. When pressed by committee members, Reid said he didn't have a specific example of an infrastructure project that would warrant seizing tribal land but that, 'We need to write the law mindful of the potential for problems.' Republican Sen. David Haggan of Penobscot, who was one of four committee members to vote against the bill in committee, invited Reid and Tim Woodcock, attorney with Eaton Peabody, to provide a question and answer session about the bill, which was only attended by Republican legislators on May 8. A handout from that meeting listed similar key points, pointing to uncertain future needs and arguing that the state needs to be mindful of the interests of the 1.4 million non-tribal Maine citizens, as well. 'Informational sessions like this are not unusual,' the governor's press secretary Ben Goodman said when asked why the session was held. So far, sweeping changes to the Settlement Act have failed due to opposition from Mills, though an omnibus sovereignty bill has been carried over into next year. Instead, the governor, lawmakers and Wabanaki leaders have successfully made some targeted adjustments, including expanding tribal authority to prosecute crimes last year. Craig Francis, a tribal attorney and Passamaquoddy citizen, told Maine Morning Star that the Wabanaki Nations hadn't expected the eminent domain issue to garner the pushback from the Mills administration that it has. 'We're trying to approach change that way because of what the governor has laid that out as a path forward,' Francis said, referring to the piecemeal approach. 'We didn't really see eminent domain as that big of an issue as her office is making it out to be.' The state has not exercised eminent domain over tribal lands since the Settlement Act, a point Fredette also made on the House floor. This also means that, currently, the state's ability to exercise eminent domain over tribal lands is not actually clear. 'I suspect that even if the state were going to attempt to take a piece of tribal land by eminent domain, it would be sufficiently litigated frankly for years before that were to happen,' Fredette said on the floor, 'and so I think this is a bill that's in search of a problem.' Meanwhile, Francis said the likelihood of litigation is a reason to clarify rights now in the bill. 'It leaves open legal questions that ultimately will end up having to be resolved by a court,' Francis said. 'We're trying to resolve it amicably because there's always room for conversation in the future if [the state] needed land.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
