SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
house judiciary committee
DOJ 'Appears to Be Covering Up' Trump-Epstein Connections, Dems Say in New Report
"Trump’s Justice Department has shut down investigations, deliberately withheld evidence and, through Todd Blanche, prevented Ghislaine Maxwell from discussing a survivor whose account implicated Trump."
Oct 26, 2026
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee published a report Monday alleging that the US Justice Department is engaged in a "desperate" attempt to cover up President Donald Trump's connections to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, citing a growing body of documentary evidence and witness testimony.
The 53-page report, released days before the midterm elections, lays out the accounts of 11 women who have connected Trump to Epstein and the latter's sex-trafficking operations. Five of those women—identified as Beatrice Keul, Stacey Williams, Jill Harth, Katie Johnson, and Jane Doe—"directly accused Trump of raping or sexually assaulting them in Epstein’s company or direct physical presence," according to the new report, which calls for a special counsel investigation into "Epstein's co-conspirators" and the alleged coverup by the DOJ, currently headed by former Trump lawyer Todd Blanche.
“Trump says he knew Jeffrey Epstein ‘just like everybody in Palm Beach knew him.’ Not exactly," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. "Evidence involving 11 women tells a completely different and far more damning story about their relationship and the abuse of young women and girls that took place in their network."
"Five women have directly accused Trump of rape or sexual assault in Epstein’s company or presence; others have indicated that Epstein or Maxwell attempted to traffic them to Trump," Raskin continued. "These women have spoken to investigators and, in some cases, testified under oath, yet Trump’s Justice Department has shut down investigations, deliberately withheld evidence and, through Todd Blanche, prevented Ghislaine Maxwell from discussing a survivor whose account implicated Trump—all while insisting there is no basis upon which to investigate Epstein’s possible accomplices. Trump’s Justice Department appears to be covering up these crimes to protect the president."
The report accuses the Justice Department's leaders—including Blanche and former Attorney General Pam Bondi, who oversaw the legally mandated release of some of the Epstein files—of operating "like a private legal defense firm" for the president, who has repeatedly downplayed his past relationship with Epstein and condemned the furor over the files as a "hoax."
Among the allegations featured in Democrats' report is that Trump raped Beatrice Keul in a hotel suite during his American Dream Pageant in 1993. Keul, who was 24 at the time of the alleged assault, told committee staff that Trump promised to arrange a visa for her.
The report continues:
According to Keul, after Trump stepped away from their conversation, Epstein immediately approached her saying 'I’m Jeffrey, Don’s best friend.' Epstein then spent at least 10 minutes talking to Keul, all the time looking over and grinning at Trump, who had remained in the room and was watching their conversation from afar. Epstein also made similar promises as Trump and asked Keul to attend a party at Mar-a-Lago in the coming months...
Later that day, Donald Trump’s representative invited Keul to go upstairs at the Plaza Hotel to meet with Trump. Believing this meeting to be a lucky break for the purpose of furthering her career and education, Keul accompanied Trump’s representative upstairs. He ushered her into the suite, where upon entering, Trump reportedly grabbed Keul from behind and forcibly raped her; in the process, tearing her dress and causing bleeding and bruising on multiple parts of her body.
Two allegations detailed in the House Judiciary Committee report involve allegations that Trump sexually assaulted two 13-year-old girls.
Katie Johnson, a pseudonym, "alleged to the FBI that Trump and Epstein repeatedly raped her at Epstein’s New York residence in 1994, when she was 13," the report states. "She said the men argued over who would take her virginity. Whistleblower information obtained by the committee indicates that documents linked to a case number involving Katie Johnson have been withheld from Congress and the public."
A spokesperson for Trump's White House told MS NOW in response to the report that "none of these allegations are true" and said, falsely, that Trump "has been fully exonerated of anything related to Epstein."
Raskin said Monday that "the women who survived Epstein deserve to be heard, Congress must have the complete files required by law, and an independent special counsel must investigate Epstein’s co-conspirators and DOJ’s coverup and ensure that state and foreign prosecutors have the evidence they need to pursue justice."
In addition to the grave allegations against Trump, the report suggests Blanche potentially engaged in "witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding—serious felonies." The report points to a 2025 conversation between Blanche and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein companion and co-conspirator.
"The whole point of the conversation was not to uncover information but to create a conspiracy of silence and strategically deter Ghislaine Maxwell from sharing information that was not public at the time regarding the relationship between Trump and Epstein," the report says.
The Democrats' report expresses doubt that the Trump administration will take the "minimal step" of appointing an independent special counsel to investigate matters related to Epstein and the president.
"Accordingly," the report concludes, "Congress must continue to use its legislative and oversight powers to pursue justice for survivors and bring an end to the Trump administration’s shameful, bureaucratic, and political cover-up."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Damning’ New Evidence Suggests Trump Stole Classified Documents to Advance Business Interests
"If the DOJ is so confident in Trump's conduct, why are they desperate" to hide former special counsel Jack Smith's report, wondered Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.
Mar 25, 2026
Democrats on the US mHouse Judiciary Committee on Wednesday demanded that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice "stop the cover-up" of former special counsel Jack Smith's full investigation into Trump's retention of classified documents following his first term, after new material sent to the panel revealed that some documents were stolen to advance the president's business interests.
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi about "cherry-picked documents" related to Smith's investigations into Trump's taking of classified documents, which he stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey.
The DOJ has regularly produced documents for the Judiciary Committee as Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has sought to portray Smith as having a partisan vendetta against the president, said Raskin. Smith led investigations into Trump's hoarding of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results during the Biden administration. Last month US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, permanently blocked the release of Smith's final report on the documents case.
Raskin wrote Wednesday that even as Jordan has embarked on a "vindictive campaign" against Smith and has sought a narrow selection of material from the DOJ, Bondi had "quite amazingly missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss’s conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Aileen Cannon."
Those documents include a January 13, 2023 memorandum from prosecutors who said the FBI had determined Trump retained documents that "would be pertinent to certain business interests.” The documents "established a motive for retaining them" that related to Trump's businesses.
Trump and his family have garnered condemnation for profiting off the presidency, with the family raking in more than $5 billion in cryptocurrency profits since he took office for a second time, and Trump's two eldest sons investing in a drone company that is vying for Pentagon contracts as the president wages war on Iran.
The prosecutors' memo also says the retention of some of the documents represented "an aggravated potential harm to national security," with one "particularly sensitive document" accessible only by an estimated six people in the US government, including the president, before he took it to his private property.
Additionally, the memo says prosecutors had "identified a classified map that we believe Trump may have shown to individuals on board” his private airplane in June 2022. Susie Wiles, the CEO of Trump's super political action committee and now the White House chief of staff, "was aboard and witnessed this event. Raskin's letter includes a flight manifest listing 14 people who were aboard Trump's private plane when he allegedly showed the classified map, but all of the names were redacted.
Raskin emphasized that without access to the second volume of Smith's final report, the Judiciary Committee cannot confirm what the classified map shows, the relationship between his business interest and the classified documents, or what the especially sensitive material is.
The congressman noted that some facts are known about Trump's activities around the time that he allegedly showed the classified map:
We do know that around the time of this flight to Bedminster, President Trump was entering into partnerships with Saudi-backed LIV Golf and state-linked real estate firm Dar al Arkan. A month after this flight, in July 2022, President Trump played golf at Bedminster with Yasir al-Rumayyan, head of the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia—the same official who plied the Trump family with tens of millions of dollars as the family began to run out of money between terms... We also know that there are reports that Donald Trump, at one point while on the phone with his ghostwriter, “made a reference to having classified records relating to the bombing of Iran.” He also reportedly boasted that it was only the hawks who wanted to attack Iran, not him, and that he had Pentagon war plans “done by the military and given to me” about such a potential attack.
"If this map is related to our military posture in the Middle East, and it was in fact shown to any foreign official, Saudi or otherwise, that would amount to an unforgivable betrayal of our men and women in uniform who are currently valiantly fighting in President Trump’s disastrous war against Iran," wrote Raskin.
"It is now clear that DOJ is in possession of evidence that President Trump has already endangered national security to further the interests of Trump family businesses," he wrote. "It is time for you to stop the cover-up and allow the American people to know what secrets he betrayed and how he may have cashed in on them."
Raskin demanded information from the DOJ regarding who accessed the classified materials, whether any foreign actors were given access, and what the documents contain.
“Every new detail that comes to light about the report Judge Cannon has gone to great lengths to keep hidden underscores the same basic truth: The public is being denied access to critical information about one of the most serious national security scandals in American history,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of the government watchdog American Oversight. “While fragments of the factual record have seen the light of day, the full report remains under seal because Judge Cannon has prioritized the president’s personal interests over transparency. The public has a right to see special counsel Smith’s findings in full. Blocking the report’s release only serves to protect those in power and prevent accountability.”
After Raskin's letter was released, the DOJ took the social media to accuse him and Smith of being "blinded by hatred of President Trump" and pronounce the department "the most transparent in history."
"This letter is nothing more than a cheap political stunt, almost as if taking cues from members of the corrupt Jack Smith prosecution team," said the DOJ.
The House Judiciary Committee Democrats retorted that the administration "is doing legal gymnastics to prevent the American people from ever seeing special counsel Jack Smith's full report on how Trump stole classified documents to advance his corrupt business interests."
"If the DOJ is so confident in Trump's conduct, why are they desperate to keep Smith's report under lock and key?" they asked. "Stop the cover-up, release the evidence, and let the American people decide for ourselves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jack Smith: Trump 'Willfully Broke the Law' and Is Seeking 'Revenge' Against Those Who Uncovered It
"President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold."
Jan 22, 2026
Former special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday defended his decision to bring criminal charges against President Donald Trump, while also expressing deep concerns about the rule of law in the US during the second Trump administration.
During testimony before the US House Judiciary Committee, Smith emphasized that he decided to prosecute Trump solely because the facts in the case showed he had committed crimes.
"President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold," said Smith. "Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned."
Smith then said that after losing the US presidential election in 2020, Trump "engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power."
The former special counsel emphasized that he stood by his decisions to bring charges against Trump because "our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity."
Smith told lawmakers on the committee that he had uncovered evidence that Trump knew his claims about the 2020 election being stolen were false, but he pushed them anyway in order to illegally remain in the White House.
"Trump was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election," said Smith. "He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him things that conflicted with him staying in power, he rejected them."
In addition to discussing his criminal cases against the president, which were dismissed without prejudice after the 2024 presidential election, Smith also delivered a warning about Trump's campaign of retribution against his enemies.
"President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for having done these cases," he said. "Vilifying and seeking retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the base of us, and it has been a privilege to serve with them."
Smith then pivoted to warning about the state of the rule of law in general during Trump's second term.
"My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted," he said. "The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country."
Smith's testimony earned praise from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
"Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts," Raskin said. "You followed every applicable law... Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity Section. You acted based solely on the facts."
The Maryland Democrat said that Smith's approach to enforcing the law was in stark contrast to the approach the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken during Trump's second term.
"The opposite of Donald Trump, who now has purported to take over the Department of Justice," Raskin said. "He’s in charge of the whole thing under his unitary executive theory, and he acts openly, purely based on political vendetta and motives of personal revenge. And he doesn’t deny it."
As Smith was testifying, Trump called Smith a "deranged animal" and put direct pressure the DOJ to punish the former special counsel.
"Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM — A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!"
On Tuesday, Trump filed a motion asking the US District Court of the Southern District of Florida to prohibit the DOJ from carrying out a planned future release of Smith's report on his case against Trump that involved the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort after he left the White House in 2021.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, linked the timing of Thursday's hearing with Smith to the potential release of his report on the classified documents case.
" Republicans are only now allowing this hearing simply because Judge Cannon’s injunction keeping the second volume of Jack Smith’s report private is about to expire," she said. "Keeping the truth locked away is an assault on the rule of law and on the transparency owed to the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tries to Permanently Stop DOJ From Releasing Jack Smith Report on Classified Documents Case
"Does he want the Smith report to be locked up with the Epstein files?"
Jan 21, 2026
As his administration continues dragging its feet in releasing the Epstein files, President Donald Trump is pushing to keep another potentially damning set of Justice Department documents hidden from the public.
On Tuesday, Trump filed a 19-page motion requesting that the US District Court of the Southern District of Florida step in to prohibit the DOJ’s planned release of Volume II of the final report prepared by former Special Counsel Jack Smith next month. The volume relates to the president’s handling of classified documents after leaving office in 2021.
Trump was indicted by a grand jury for 37 felony counts following Smith's investigation, 31 of which involved violations of the Espionage Act, after transporting "scores of boxes" full of classified materials, including top-level military and intelligence secrets, to his home at Mar-a-Lago and showing them off to people without security clearances.
But Smith ultimately dropped the case in November 2024 after it became clear that Trump's reelection would shield him from legal liability.
It's strange for the President of the United States to be litigating in his personal capacity against the Justice Department he runs — but he's seeking an order barring "current, former and future" DOJ officials from releasing Jack Smith's second volume. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
[image or embed]
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney.bsky.social) January 20, 2026 at 6:38 PM
On January 7, 2025, just days before Trump reassumed office, the DOJ released Volume I of Smith's report, which pertained to Trump's attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election by spreading false claims of widespread voter fraud, which culminated in the attack on the US Capitol building by a mob of his supporters on January 6, 2021.
Though Trump's indictment in that case was also dropped following his reelection, the report was released under DOJ rules requiring public disclosure of all investigative reports after cases conclude.
That report described Trump as having undertaken an “unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power,” a scheme in which he knowingly spread information casting doubt on the election result even after his own staff confirmed it to be false and he acknowledged his loss in private.
Unlike the election case, the classified documents case was dismissed in July 2024 by the Trump-appointed federal judge Aileen Cannon of the same district court, who ruled that Smith's appointment as special counsel was unlawful.
Cannon also issued an injunction blocking the release of the report to Congress, but only until February 24, 2026, so as not to prejudice the legal proceedings against Trump's co-defendants, former aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago employee Carlos De Oliveira, who were accused of helping him illegally stash documents and hide them from investigators.
Citing her previous ruling, Trump is now asking Cannon to permanently block the report, claiming that, because of her ruling against Smith, "all acts undertaken" by him, including the creation and release of the report, are "void."
Not only does he seek to prohibit the "current" DOJ from releasing it, but also "former and future" DOJ officials from ever releasing it, as it would result in the "public dissemination of sensitive grand jury materials, attorney-client privileged information, and other informationderived from protected discovery materials, raising significant statutory, due process, and privacy concerns for President Trump and his former co-defendants."
Trump's request to permanently spike the report immediately drew comparisons to the Epstein files, which remain almost entirely unreleased by the DOJ nearly a month after the deadline mandated by law, which was signed by Trump himself after being passed in November.
For over a year, efforts to halt the release of Smith's report have fueled concerns of a cover-up and raised questions about whether Cannon has any authority to issue rulings at all, since the case has been dismissed.
In a piece for MS NOW (then MSNBC) last year, after the first report was released, legal analyst Glenn Kirschner warned that if the second one were buried in perpetuity, it could allow Trump to escape legal consequences after his term is up.
"If there is no disclosure of Volume II to members of Congress, what might a Trump-led DOJ do to the evidence?" he asked. "Might it be destroyed in an attempt to make sure Trump is never held to account for the classified documents crimes? Recall that the documents case was dismissed without prejudice, which means the case could theoretically be refiled once Trump leaves office."
His colleague, former US Attorney Joyce Vance, noted the peculiarity of Cannon's assertion of authority in a case that had already been dismissed.
"The strangest thing about this entire proceeding is that Judge Cannon continues to issue orders when there is no case pending in front of her," she said. "That’s not how a court’s jurisdiction is supposed to work.”
After appearing at a closed-door deposition last month as part of an inquiry launched by Republicans, Smith is scheduled to testify publicly before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday at 10 am ET.
Smith's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, told the Associated Press earlier this month that "Jack has been clear for months he is ready and willing to answer questions in a public hearing about his investigations into President Trump's alleged unlawful efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his mishandling of classified documents."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Launch Probe Into ‘Violent’ ICE Raid of Chicago Apartment Complex
“Treating a US city like a war zone is intolerable. We urge you to end such violent, middle-of-the-night operations that traumatize entire communities and put innocent men, women and children, including US citizens, at risk.”
Oct 08, 2025
Democrats on the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees on Tuesday announced they were launching a probe into a widely condemned raid by federal immigration officials on a Chicago apartment complex last week.
Led by Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the Democrats said that they are demanding answers from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pamela Bondi about why it was necessary to deploy the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to conduct a raid reportedly without warrants that left local residents terrified.
"According to media reports, armed federal agents in military fatigues approached or entered nearly every apartment in the five-story, 130-unit apartment building, using flash-bang grenades, busting down doors, and pulling men, women, and children from their beds," the Democrats wrote in a letter to Noem and Bondi. "Agents put residents in zip ties and led them to unmarked vans to wait for hours while handcuffed, with children separated from their parents."
The Democrats also cited reports about "US citizens and military veterans" being "dragged out of their apartments in zip ties and detained for hours" with no explanation. They noted that residents had reported significant property damage after the raid, including doors that were blown off their hinges and holes that were left in their walls.
They also accused the federal government of waging a "violent, heavy-handed immigration enforcement operation" that left an entire community in trauma.
"Treating a US city like a war zone is intolerable," they emphasized. "We urge you to end such violent, middle-of-the-night operations that traumatize entire communities and put innocent men, women and children, including US citizens, at risk."
The Democrats' investigation into the raid comes as President Donald Trump on Wednesday morning pushed for jailing both Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Trump on Tuesday also deployed Texas National Guard troops to Chicago, over the objections of both Pritzker and Johnson.
The human rights group Amnesty International USA said Tuesday that in addition to "a full independent investigation into the unlawful raid," Congress "must immediately stop funding ICE and hold ICE and other federal agencies accountable for their lawlessness and abuses."
“The government has an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that nobody is above the law,” said Paul O’Brien, the group's executive director. “These raids are an attack on human rights and a threat to everybody in the U.S. Federal officials who committed human rights violations during the raids, including those with command responsibility, must be held accountable.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Raskin Slams Trump DOJ Threat to Prosecute Local Officials Over Immigration Enforcement
"It's laughable that the party that once prided themselves on being champions of state and local government are now trampling state and local authority," said Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).
Jan 23, 2025
The top Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee issued a statement Thursday condemning the Trump administration's threat that state and local officials could be criminally prosecuted for refusing to cooperate with the president's planned immigration crackdown, which is already drawing legal action and vows of opposition from advocacy groups and communities across the country.
"This policy will lead to chaos, division, and protracted litigation that will unnecessarily cost both state and federal taxpayers huge amounts of money that could be used to keep America safe," wrote Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who also argued that the "federal government doesn't own the states."
Raskin's comments were in response to a Tuesday memo from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove to Justice Department employees that was obtained by The Washington Post.
"Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands," wrote Bove, who stated that the supremacy clause of the Constitution and other legal authorities "require state and local actors to comply with the executive branch's immigration enforcement initiatives."
The memo also makes mention of a "Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group" which will identify state and local policies and laws that are inconsistent with White House immigration initiatives.
On Monday, his first day in office, Trump announced sweeping changes to U.S. immigration enforcement via executive actions, including attempting to end birthright citizenship, reinstating his "Remain in Mexico" policy, suspending refugee resettlement, and moving to restrict federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities.
In response to the memo, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said that the move is a "scare tactic," according to The Los Angeles Times. Bonta said that his team is reviewing the memo and will be "prepared to take legal action if the Trump administration's vague threats turn to illegal action."
Raskin challenged the memo for its "failure to cite any authority for this proposition."
"The Constitution and Supreme Court precedents make clear that the 10th Amendment and constitutional federalism protect state and local government and their officials from being 'commandeered' by the federal government as instrumentalities to carry out its policies," he wrote.
"It's laughable that the party that once prided themselves on being champions of state and local government are now trampling state and local authority by commandeering state and local governments to serve a federal agenda," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Morgan Stanley Latest Wall Street Giant to Ditch Net-Zero Coalition
Earlier this week, Bank of America and Citigroup also said they were leaving the Net-Zero Banking Alliance.
Jan 02, 2025
On Thursday, the Wall Street titan Morgan Stanley became the latest financial institution to leave the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a United Nations-convened group of banks committed to "aligning their lending, investment, and capital markets activities with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050."
The defections keep piling up. Earlier this week, Bank of America and Citigroup said they were leaving the alliance, and earlier in December Goldman Sachs Group and Wells Fargo announced they were doing the same.
“We will continue to report on our progress as we work towards our 2030 interim financed-emissions targets,” Morgan Stanley told Bloomberg in an email.
While Morgan Stanley didn't offer an explanation for the exit, according to Reuters, financial firms have repeatedly found themselves in the crosshairs of some members of the GOP who argue that corporate efforts to limit fossil fuels run afoul of antitrust law.
Last summer, the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee published a report accusing financial institutions colluding to impose "radical environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals on American companies." Their probe was largely focused on another climate group, Climate Action 100+, which is made up of financial institutions who strive to engage companies they invest in on climate issues. That coalition has also experienced a number of defections.
In December, 11 GOP-led states sued three asset managers in federal court, arguing that the firms had "artificially constrained the supply of coal, significantly diminished competition in the markets for coal, increased energy prices for American consumers, and produced cartel-level profits" for the firms in violation of antitrust law.
Despite the stated goals of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, Morgan Stanley and other firms who are a part of the alliance have remained a major financial life lines for fossil fuel companies.
According to a report published by a group of NGOs in 2023, 56 of the largest banks in the Net-Zero Banking Alliance—including Morgan Stanley—have provided nearly $270 billion in the form of loans and underwriting to more than 100 "major fossil fuel expanders," from Saudi Aramco to ExxonMobil to Shell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Privacy Advocates Alarmed as House Resumes Spying Powers Fight
Rights groups are particularly concerned about reporting that parts of the debate could be held in "secret session."
Feb 12, 2024
Privacy rights advocates and experts are sounding the alarm this week as members of the U.S. House of Representatives dive back into a contentious battle over reforming warrantless government surveillance powers that historically have been abused and consider closed-door debate.
House Republicans on Monday unveiled the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act and announced that the Committee on Rules will meet Wednesday to discuss the bill, which combines two previously competing proposals focused on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Section 702—which Congress temporarily extended with an annual defense package in December—only allows warrantless surveillance targeting foreigners located outside the United States, but Americans' data is also collected, and several agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been widely lambasted for misusing it.
"Rushing to pass an anti-reform bill, subject only to very limited (and partially secret) debate, is a flagrant attempt to sidestep the strong, bipartisan movement for surveillance reform."
The new bill "more closely aligns with the original proposal from the House Intelligence Committee over that of its Judiciary competitor, focusing on more reforms at the FBI to address misuse of the powerful spy tool," according to The Hill. "But it does not include Judiciary's hope for a warrant requirement—something deemed a red line for the intelligence community but nonetheless a top priority for privacy advocates in Congress."
The outlet also noted that "the process of bringing the bill to the floor will push the House to return to a previously floated idea from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to do a queen-of-the-hill-style debate format that would allow for consideration of amendments—including a potential amendment on a warrant requirement."
Also stressing the divisiveness of the warrant policy, Wired detailed Monday:
Several aides attributed the drawn-out nature of the fight, at least in part, to the relative naivete of the House speaker on national security matters, saying that, with little experience in the area, Johnson had not previously had the opportunity to be captured by the intelligence community—powerful interests accused by congressional staffers of routinely deploying "fear tactics" to defend surveillance operations plagued by regular error and abuse.
Johnson's lack of any intelligence background, staffers say, would have likely increased his dependence on House intelligence staffers, who, while cultivating a sense of awe due to their access to national secrets, routinely behave as ambassadors between the spy agencies and regular congressional staff.
Privacy advocates inside and outside the House continue to emphasize the need for a warrant requirement. They are also concerned about reporting from Politico's Jordain Carney late Sunday that some debate may occur in "secret session."
"Most lawmakers want major reform of Section 702. The Judiciary Committee's reform bill passed out of committee on a 35-2 vote," said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program. "Intelligence Committee leaders know they can't win on an even playing field, so they're trying to use secrecy to avoid reform."
"Secret law is anathema to democracies, and making law in secret is the next worst thing. Open debate is a core feature of our democratic system," she continued, noting how uncommon secret sessions are. "House members should unite in opposition to this ploy and demand open debate on surveillance reform."
Responding to Goitein on social media, exiled American whistleblower Edward Snowden declared: "Secrecy and deceit must have no place in the making of American law. This effort to revive disgraced Bush-era practices in order to thwart a *reform bill* is a scandal. A genuine scandal."
Jeramie Scott, senior counsel and director of EPIC's Project on Surveillance Oversight was similarly critical, saying: "Rushing to pass an anti-reform bill, subject only to very limited (and partially secret) debate, is a flagrant attempt to sidestep the strong, bipartisan movement for surveillance reform. The American people deserve better."
Jake Laperruque of the Center for Democracy & Technology's Security and Surveillance Project—who backed the previous House Judiciary Committee bill—cast doubt on the new legislation's prospects given opposition from not only that panel but also the far-right Freedom Caucus, which has scheduled a Tuesday afternoon press conference.
Laperruque said Monday that "I don't think you can say with any certainty" that the bill would get support from a majority of Republicans, who narrowly control the House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Students Demanding Protection for Pro-Palestinian Activism Arrested at House Hearing on Campus Speech
"Palestinian students deserve to speak on the genocide of their families," said one protester as they were led out of the room by police.
Nov 08, 2023
The limits of the Republican-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee's views on freedom of speech were on full display Wednesday shortly after a hearing on "Free Speech on College Campuses" began, when several pro-Palestinian rights demonstrators were removed from the hearing room and arrested for speaking out.
The committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), invited representatives of conservative and pro-Zionist groups including Young Americans for Freedom and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to speak about what Jordan called "hostility towards certain points of view, in particular conservative points of view" amid growing outrage over Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza and the West Bank.
"With 'safe spaces' and 'free speech zones' aiming to protect students from violence," Jordan said in his opening remarks, "one would think Jewish students would have somewhere to turn as violent, pro-Hamas students take to their demonstrations and have harmed students on college campuses. That's not the case, as we will see in today's hearing."
But as the hearing got underway, protesters who were among the majority of Americans who support a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war currently raging in Gaza were promptly kicked out of the room for demanding that lawmakers consider how their speech has been suppressed since the war began.
One student demanded to know when speaking out against genocide "became antisemitism" as she reminded the committee that more than 4,200 children in Gaza have been killed by Israeli forces so far as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government continues to insist it is targeting Hamas in retaliation for the group's October 7 attack on southern Israel.
"What is your right to speech if all of us are not free?" asked the protester as she was pulled out of the room by Capitol Police.
The Hill reported that 10 demonstrators were arrested after interrupting the hearing to say "Free Palestine," "Free Gaza," and "End the siege and the occupation now."
Journalist Dima Amro reported that police confiscated the protesters' keffiyehs and took them to the Capitol Police headquarters.
Jordan cited a "nearly 400% increase in antisemitic incidents, including harassment, vandalism, and assault" in the two weeks after the Hamas attack, but did not mention that the nation's largest Muslim civil rights group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reported that anti-Muslim violence and harassment reports tripled in October.
Despite their focus on free speech on college campuses, Republicans on the committee also did not appear disturbed by a call by the ADL and Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law—both of which were represented at the hearing—for universities to investigate campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
The groups accused SJP of "celebrating terrorism" and said it should be investigated for potentially "providing material support to Hamas."
Last week, the ACLU expressed its strong opposition to "any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses, and urged universities to reject calls to investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights."
"We recognize that colleges and universities are managing heightened threats and anguished tensions on their campuses while trying to keep students safe—and we take those concerns seriously," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "The devastating conflict in Israel and Palestine has embroiled campuses here at home, sometimes resulting in speech that includes terms we vehemently disagree with or even find offensive and repugnant. Yet it's precisely in times of crisis and fear that university leaders must remain firm in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus."
"A blanket call to investigate every chapter of a pro-Palestinian student group for 'material support to terrorists'— without even an attempt to cite evidence—is unwarranted, wrong, and dangerous," Romero added. "It echoes America's mistakes during the McCarthy era and is counterproductive. We urge college and university leaders to hold fast to our nation's best traditions and reject proposals to restrict constitutionally protected speech."
At the hearing Wednesday, one demonstrator told the committee that "Palestinian students deserve to speak on the genocide of their families" and called for lawmakers and universities to "stop silencing Palestinian students."
Jordan's hearing also follows the spreading of misinformation about pro-Palestinian rights demonstration at the University of California, Los Angeles and other schools where students chanted, "Israel, Israel, you can't hide: We charge you with genocide!" Social media users claimed the protesters were calling for a "Jewish genocide."
On Tuesday, Jordan and nearly all other House Republicans were joined by 22 Democrats in voting to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian-American member of the House, for her defense of the phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which is commonly used at Palestinian rights protests.
"You are not offering a plurality of opinion," one protester told Jordan, "you are offering partisanship, and you are offering murder to more Gazans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Bill to Protect Reporters From Exploitative State Spying Heads to House Floor
"Journalists must be able to freely report on government actions without fear the government will compel them to reveal their sources," said one campaigner.
Jul 19, 2023
Privacy and First Amendment advocates on Wednesday urged the U.S. House to pass legislation that would protect the United States' bedrock freedoms and a core tenet of journalism: the right of reporters to guard the identities of their sources.
The House Judiciary Committee advanced the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act with bipartisan support, despite claims in recent months by Republican lawmakers such as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) that the legislation would "immunize journalists and leakers alike from scrutiny and consequences for their actions."
The bill has been recognized by press freedom advocates as the most important piece of legislation in modern times regarding journalists' rights, as it would codify state protections at the federal level.
Forty-nine states already protect reporters from being compelled to reveal their confidential sources and federal abuse of subpoena power, and the PRESS Act would ensure all journalists have those protections regardless of where in the country they live and work.
"Journalists must be able to freely report on government actions without fear the government will compel them to reveal their sources. We commend the House Judiciary Committee for its bipartisan support of the PRESS Act," said Daniel Schuman, policy director at Demand Progress. "The Senate must act now to advance this important legislation."
The House previously advanced the bill with a voice vote last September, garnering support from all the Republicans in the chamber. Schuman pointed out late last year, as Cotton blocked the passage of the bill in the Senate, that the lower chamber included a number of exceptions in the law to satisfy the House GOP.
The bill includes exceptions for cases pertaining to information necessary to identify people accused of terrorist acts or involving the risk of imminent bodily harm or death, crimes unrelated to journalism, slander, libel, and defamation.
"The PRESS Act creates critical protections for the fearless journalists who act as government watchdogs and keep all of us informed," said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, which has long advocated for the bill. "While the majority of states already have shield laws in place that protect journalists from compelled disclosure of their sources, the PRESS Act provides uniform protections to journalists all across the country. We thank the House Judiciary Committee for protecting our constitutional right to a free press and urge the full House to swiftly pass this bipartisan legislation."
Although the U.S. Department of Justice adopted a policy in 2021 restricting subpoenas and seizures of journalists' technological devices and data, Gabriela Schneider noted at First Branch Forecast, Demand Progress Education Fund's newsletter, that the measure "could just as easily be suspended, ignored, or secretly altered."
"Importantly," Schneider wrote, "the PRESS Act would codify into law this prohibition, making it real and permanent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy