Tag Archives: attorney

Cuomo acquiesces to demand that Attorney General Letitia James control inquiry

New York state Attorney General Letitia James, who in January released a report that claimed Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration dramatically undercounted COVID-19 nursing home deaths in the state, will have full control over the sexual harassment inquiry that threatens his administration.

James said Sunday that she expected to be granted a referral that would give her office subpoena power and allow her to deputize an outside law firm for “a rigorous and independent investigation.”

Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand, both Democrats from New York, called for the investigative power to be granted to James “so that she can conduct a transparent and thorough investigation with subpoena power.”

The Democrat & Chronicle reported that Cuomo — at first — wanted to refer the issue to Barbara Jones, a former U.S. district judge, who worked with one of his former advisers.

After that idea was rejected, the paper reported that Cuomo wanted James to work with a judge that he appointed to help select an appropriate independent attorney to look into the matter.

Over several hours Sunday, James and other leading party officials rejected Cuomo’s proposals for how an investigation might proceed.

The paper said by 5:30 p.m. Sunday, the governor agreed to relinquish the power to James. Neither office immediately responded to emails from Fox News.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said President Joe Biden also supported an independent review that “should move forward as quickly as possible.”

Cuomo has been accused by a former aide, Lindsey Boylan, of orchestrating  a “pervasive” culture of “sexual harassment and bullying.” She posted on Medium that Cuomo once suggested that they play “strip poker” during a flight in October 2017 and said he once kissed her on the lips.

Boylan, a Democrat running for Manhattan borough president, said that during her more than three years in the Democrat’s administration, Cuomo “would go out of his way to touch me on my lower back, arms and legs.”

Charlotte Bennett, who is described by The New York Times as “an executive assistant and health policy adviser in the Cuomo administration until she left in November,” alleges that Cuomo “asked her questions about her sex life, whether she was monogamous in her relationships and if she had ever had sex with older men.”

Cuomo’s office denied Boylan’s allegations. He said he never made advances toward Bennett “nor did I ever intend to act in any way that was inappropriate. The last thing I would ever have wanted was to make her feel any of the things that are being reported.”

Cuomo issued a statement on Sunday to address the sexual harassment allegations, but even the statement was criticized as tone-deaf by critics.

“At work sometimes I think I am being playful and make jokes that I think are funny. I do, on occasion, tease people in what I think is a good-natured way,” the governor explained. “I do it in public and in private. You have seen me do it at briefings hundreds of times. I have teased people about their personal lives, their relationships, about getting married or not getting married. I mean no offense and only attempt to add some levity and banter to what is a very serious business.”

Cuomo continued, “I now understand that my interactions may have been insensitive or too personal and that some of my comments, given my position, made others feel in ways I never intended. I acknowledge some of the things I have said have been misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation. To the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.”

The scandal is the second one that Cuomo faces, and James plays a central role on both.

James said last month that nursing home COVID-19 deaths in New York were undercounted by as much as 50%, prompting calls for Cuomo to appear before the House Oversight Committee. A spokesman for Cuomo slammed the request as “empty political theater.” 

Fox News’ Brooke Singman, Joesph A. Wulfshon and the Associated Press contributed to this report

Read original article here

U.S. Attorney For Connecticut John Durham Resigns – NBC Connecticut

U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, John Durham, announced his resignation from that postition on Friday.

He was appointed as interim U.S. Attorney in November 2017 and then appointed to the U.S Attorney post by President Donald Trump in February of 2018.

Durham spent more than 38 years as a federal prosecutor in Connecticut before taking over the role as U.S. Attorney.

“My career has been as fulfilling as I could ever have imagined when I graduated from law school way back in 1975,” Durham said in a news release. “Much of that fulfillment has come from all the people with whom I’ve been blessed to share this workplace, and in our partner law enforcement agencies. My love and respect for this Office and the vitally important work done here have never diminished. It has been a tremendous honor to serve as U.S. Attorney, and as a career prosecutor before that, and I will sorely miss it.”

Durham’s resignation is not unexpected. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice asked U.S. Attorneys appointed under President Donald Trump to resign so the Biden administration could present its own nominations to those posts.

Durham was appointed last year by then-Attorney General William Barr as a special council to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He will remain in that capacity, according to the Associated Press.

The resignation as U.S. Attorney for Connecticut is effective at Midnight on Feb. 28.

First Assisant U.S. Attorney Leonard Boyle will serve as the Acting U.S. Attorney.



Read original article here

U.S. Attorney For Connecticut John Durham Resigns – NBC Connecticut

U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, John Durham, announced his resignation from that postition on Friday.

He was appointed as interim U.S. Attorney in November 2017 and then appointed to the U.S Attorney post by President Donald Trump in February of 2018.

Durham spent more than 38 years as a federal prosecutor in Connecticut before taking over the role as U.S. Attorney.

“My career has been as fulfilling as I could ever have imagined when I graduated from law school way back in 1975,” Durham said in a news release. “Much of that fulfillment has come from all the people with whom I’ve been blessed to share this workplace, and in our partner law enforcement agencies. My love and respect for this Office and the vitally important work done here have never diminished. It has been a tremendous honor to serve as U.S. Attorney, and as a career prosecutor before that, and I will sorely miss it.”

Durham’s resignation is not unexpected. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice asked U.S. Attorneys appointed under President Donald Trump to resign so the Biden administration could present its own nominations to those posts.

Durham was appointed last year by then-Attorney General William Barr as a special council to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He will remain in that capacity, according to the Associated Press.

The resignation as U.S. Attorney for Connecticut is effective at Midnight on Feb. 28.

First Assisant U.S. Attorney Leonard Boyle will serve as the Acting U.S. Attorney.



Read original article here

New York district attorney reportedly obtains Trump’s financial records – live | US news

The DA has said little about why he wants Trump’s records but, in a court filing last year, prosecutors said they were justified in seeking them because of public reports of ‘possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization’ – Trump’s family business empire – thought to include bank, tax and insurance fraud.

Now that investigation is gathering momentum. Vance, who earlier this month hired a lawyer with extensive experience in white-collar and organised crime cases, will be able to find out whether the public reports were accurate by studying actual financial records, spreadsheets and email correspondence between the Trump Organization and accounting firm Mazars USA.

If wrongdoing is established, it raises the spectre of Trump some day in the future standing in the dock in a New York courtroom and even facing a potential prison term. No wonder he fought so hard to cling to power and the immunity from prosecution that it conferred.

Read original article here

Donald Trump Jr. deposed by DC attorney general as part of inaugural funds lawsuit

In a court document dated Tuesday, DC Attorney General Karl Racine’s office revealed the former President’s son was deposed on February 11.

The filing states that Trump’s deposition “raised further questions about the nature” of a hotel invoice Racine’s office has been investigating. The attorney general’s office alleges that the Trump Organization signed a contract with the Loews Madison hotel for $49,358.92 for a block of rooms during the 2017 inauguration, and that the invoice was later forwarded to the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which then paid the bill, according to the filing.

Trump Jr. and his brother Eric Trump, executive vice presidents of the Trump Organization who run the real estate company on a day-to-day basis, have increasingly surfaced in investigations as authorities’ interest turns to properties the former President’s sons are involved in.

In addition to the DC attorney general’s lawsuit, prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office are digging into the company’s finances and asking questions about business units that both brothers are intimately involved with, including the Trump family compound known as Seven Springs in New York, as well as the Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street skyscrapers, according to a person familiar with the matter.

One person said prosecutors are asking “about everything under the sun about Donald, Ivanka, Don Jr and Eric, [and] Allen Weisselberg,” the chief financial officer.

Eric Trump was deposed by investigators with the New York attorney general’s office as part of a civil investigation into the Trump Organization. Ivanka Trump sat for a deposition with the Washington attorney general’s office in December.

CNN has reached out to attorneys for the Trumps for comment.

Attorney general asks for more time

The DC attorney general’s office has requested to have more time to obtain discovery materials and conduct depositions, according to the filing, adding that the office has been met with “repeated obstacles, including misleading testimony, a closed hotel and new information revealed after the deadline for issuing discovery requests passed on February 8.”

The Loews Madison is closed due to the pandemic and has changed owners twice, according to the filing.

Ten witnesses have been deposed in the case, according to the filing, but only three were able to testify about the Trump Presidential Inaugural Committee’s payment of the Loews Madison invoice, according to the filing. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment on the filing.

“These witnesses gave inconsistent accounts of the purpose of the contract and why the PIC agreed to pay it, and none of the witnesses gave a complete or accurate account of the circumstances surrounding the invoice,” the attorney general’s office wrote in the filing.

Rick Gates, who was deputy chair of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, testified that he’d received an email from a collection agency in July 2017 for the unpaid Loews Madison bill.

In his deposition, Gates said the hotel rooms were booked by a man named Gentry Beach, who was a friend and chief of staff for Donald Trump, Jr. Gates said he was told by Beach the rooms were for people who had donated to the PIC and so “the hotel bill should be paid by PIC,” according to Gates’ deposition, adding that there was a “donor package” which included hotel rooms “if you donated at a certain level.”

But Trump Jr. gave a different explanation for the names associated with rooms billed to the committee, saying they were “associated with the campaign or with the Trump family,” according to the attorney general’s office.

“For example, Mr. Trump testified that one individual was a friend from college, one was a Trump family driver, another was a New York socialite from the Real Housewives of New York who is also a Trump family friend,” the filing states.

Notes from the collection agency that were included in the court filings shows discussions between the debt collector, PIC and the Trump Organization discussing who would pay the bill.

“Rick Gates will provide payment, but needs the name changed,” a note from the collection agency in July 2017 reads. “It just cannot say ‘The Trump Organization.'”

Later, an entry from the collection agency asks if there is anything in writing from Gates promising he will pay.

“I hesitate as they all seem to be pointing fingers and making excuses as to why they won’t pay it and this seems to be another ploy so the Trump Organization’s name is not on it,” the collection agency’s note from July 2017 reads.

Gates testified that, in the end, the committee paid the invoice. CNN has reached out to Gates for comment.

Trump children under the microscope

The investigation into the Trump Organization by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is sweeping in nature and touches many facets of the business. Questions about senior executives are in line with an investigation that is trying to understand how the Trump Organization operates, which includes Trump’s children having significant roles.

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump held senior positions at the company for years before their father became president and have been involved in some of the properties under scrutiny. Eric Trump is involved in the Seven Springs property, which CNN reported is under scrutiny by the New York attorney general and district attorney’s office.

Donald Trump Jr. is involved in several of the Manhattan properties, including 40 Wall Street, that have also attracted the attention of investigators looking into whether lenders were misled about the value of certain assets. Eric Trump was deposed by investigators with the New York attorney general’s office last fall as part of a civil investigation into the Trump Organization’s finances in connection with the tax treatment of the Seven Springs estate. Manhattan prosecutors also subpoenaed information about consulting fees the Trump Organization paid to Ivanka Trump, according to people familiar with the inquiry, but there is no indication she is under scrutiny for receiving the payment.

Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Weisselberg — the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization — have not been accused of any wrongdoing. CNN has reached out to the Trump Organization for comment. The organization has previously said it complied with all laws.

The former President has called the district attorney’s investigation a witch hunt. The district attorney’s office could not immediately be reached for comment.

One insider turned informant is Michael Cohen, the fixer and personal attorney for the former President who spent 10 years inside the Trump Organization. Cohen alleged in congressional testimony that the Trump Organization improperly inflated the value of certain assets when Trump was seeking loans and insurance and deflated them when it came time to pay taxes. The New York attorney general has credited Cohen’s allegation with triggering her civil investigation. Cohen has been interviewed multiple times over the past two years by Manhattan prosecutors.

Cohen is set to meet with the district attorney’s office for the sixth time on Friday, the person said. An interview last week lasted several hours. It was attended by Mark Pomerantz, a former federal prosecutor experienced in complex financial investigations who recently joined the district attorney’s team, and Cy Vance, the district attorney, the person familiar with the matter said.

Cohen has pleaded guilty to nine criminal charges including lying to Congress, tax fraud and campaign finance charges for facilitating hush-money payments to two women who alleged extramarital affairs with Trump before he was president. Trump has denied the affairs.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Read original article here

Merrick Garland attorney general hearing opening statement released

Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland will pledge to take the lead in prosecuting those charged over the U.S. Capitol siege and vow prosecutorial independence from President Biden at his confirmation hearing Monday.

Why it matters: As attorney general, Judge Garland would oversee politically sensitive cases, including investigations into the taxes of the president’s son Hunter Biden and the origins of the probe into former President Trump’s dealings with Russia.

Driving the news: Per his prepared opening statement released Saturday night, Garland plans to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that if confirmed, he’ll address civil rights and fight discrimination and domestic terrorism.

  • He’ll highlight his career as a prosecutor — notably his supervision of the investigation into domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people.
  • On the Capitol siege, Garland will say that he intends to “supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6 — a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”
  • On the independence of the position of attorney general, Garland will say: “The President nominates the attorney general to be the lawyer — not for any individual, but for the people of the United States.”

For the record: Garland, 68, is a Chicago native and graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 1997.

  • He was nominated by then-President Obama in 2016 to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
  • But then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) prevented this, insisting the replacement should be selected by the newly elected president later that year. Justice Neil Gorsuch was later confirmed instead under the Trump administration.

Of note: Former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr was criticized throughout his tenure by Democrats, who accused him of political interference in criminal cases on behalf of the former president — which he strongly rejected.

  • In his last press conference as attorney general in December, Barr took the rare step of publicly contradicting Trump on hot-button issues including Hunter Biden, voting machines and Russia being behind the hacking of federal agencies.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated with new details throughout.

Read original article here

Trump’s impeachment attorney goes viral after exchange with CBS reporter

Michael van der Veen, one of former President Trump’s lawyers at the impeachment trial, went viral Saturday after an interview with CBS News’ streaming service called CBSN.

The lawyer, who had just won his case, was interviewed by Lana Zak, an anchor from the network, who he accused of trying to downplay Democrat impeachment managers who he said doctored evidence during the trial.

SWALWELL SAYS GOD IS A WOMAN 

The interview seemed to get tense after Zak asked him about beginning his defense by stating that there was no “insurrection” at the Capitol, but then– in his closing argument, “seemingly admitted that there was, in fact, an insurrection.” She said he used the word during the argument.

MICHAEL GOODWIN: TRUMP IMPEACHMENT VERDICT — HERE’S WHO WON AND WHO LOST

Van der Veen shot back and said she did not understand the case. He said he only used the word “insurrection” when he quoted the charging documents.

“What happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was absolutely horrific,” he said. “But what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that.”

He said the Democrat impeachment managers failed to do their homework and—desperate to make a case—”doctored evidence.”

Zak followed up his answer by clarifying for viewers that he was referring to allegations that the impeachment managers put the wrong date in a tweet, selectively edited videos and added a blue checkmark on a Twitter account submitted as evidence. Zak’s defenders said she was doing her job as a journalist to get her audience up to speed about what exactly van der Veen was referring to.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But van der Veen took her explanation as an attempt to downplay a serious allegation against the prosecutors in the case. He asked her: those allegations “aren’t enough for you?”

Zak told him that she is not a juror in the trial, but van der Veen tied the comment to the bias in the media.

“It’s not OK to doctor a little bit of evidence,” he said.

She responded, “I did not say that it was OK.”

“The media has to start telling the right story in this country,” he said. “The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe that you would ask me a question indicating that it’s alright to doctor just a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff that we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you.”

He said the media should be looking into the allegation in a “square, straight way.”

“Your coverage is so slanted…it’s gotta stop,” he said.

A senior impeachment aide said the inclusion of a fake blue check verification mark on tweets that were presented at the Senate trial was an accident. The tweets showed comments from Jennifer Lynn Lawrence who was retweeted by Trump. The two tweets that were exhibited included blue check marks next to Lawrence’s name. He also accused the impeachment managers of changing the date on a tweet in an effort to tie it to the deadly riot.

Van der Veen said the media, in general, is playing a leading role in the country’s divide because it plays for an audience, and politicians play for these news outlets for favorable coverage.

Van der Veen was praised by many conservatives on social media.

Zak was credited online for allowing van der Veen to discuss the issue. She also repeated that she did not attempt to make the Democrat case against Trump. Van der Veen was accused of unfairly mocking Zak, and also taking his microphone off during the interview.

He said her question was slanted and indicated that “it’s OK for them to cheat.”

Fox News’ Sam Dorman contributed to this report

 

Read original article here

The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles Has Been Rated For Nintendo Switch

© Capcom

Taiwan’s Digital Game Rating Committee has recently rated a total of four games for the Nintendo Switch.

The first title is The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles – which is part of Capcom’s Ace Attorney series (you know, Phoenix Wright) and is apparently a two in one release, according to the infamous Capcom leak dating back to last November.

It’ll feature The Great Ace Attorney (known in Japan as Dai Gyakuten Saiban) and The Great Ace Attorney 2. The first made its debut on the 3DS in 2015 and the second launched in 2017. This would also be the first time both games were released outside of Japan.

© 2K

The next title apparently en route to the Nintendo’s hybrid device is Tales from the Borderlands. This is an episodic adventure starring Rhys, Fiona and Handsome Jack. It was developed by Telltale Games and dates back to 2014.

This same title was recently announced for various other platforms, but hasn’t been officially confirmed for the Switch just yet – so stay tuned.

© tinyBuild

The third is Secret Neighbour. This is a scary online multiplayer version of the Hello Neighbor games by tinyBuild Games. It was originally released in 2019 and follows the release of Hello Neighbor on the Switch in 2018.

© Focus Home

Last of all is the off-road vehicle game SnowRunner by Saber Interactive and Focus Home Interactive. This one was first released in April last year and received plenty of positive reviews.

Would you be interested in playing any of these games on your Switch, if they are officially announced for the platform? Tell us down below.



Read original article here

Amazon Sues New York Attorney General to Block Covid-19 Charges

Amazon sued New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, on Friday in an attempt to stop her from bringing charges against the company over safety concerns at two of its warehouses in New York City.

The company also asked the court to force Ms. James to declare that she does not have authority to regulate workplace safety during the Covid-19 pandemic or to investigate allegations of retaliation against employees who protest their working conditions.

In the case, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Amazon said Ms. James’s office had been investigating pandemic safety concerns raised by employees at its large fulfillment center on Staten Island and at a delivery depot in Queens. It said Ms. James had “threatened to sue” Amazon if it did not agree to her demands, including subsidizing bus service, reducing worker productivity requirements, disgorging profits and reinstating Christian Smalls, a worker Amazon fired in the spring.

Mr. Smalls has said he was retaliated against for leading a protest at the Staten Island warehouse. Amazon has said he was fired for going to the work site for the protest even though he was on paid quarantine leave after he had been exposed to a colleague who tested positive for the coronavirus.

Mr. Smalls became the most visible case in the clashes between workers and Amazon, which faced a surge of orders from consumers hunkering down. As the pandemic spread across the country, many Amazon workers said the company missed early opportunities to provide better protection against Covid-19.

Amazon has strongly defended its safety measures and has gone on the offensive against its critics. In notes from an internal meeting of senior executives, Amazon’s top lawyer called Mr. Smalls inarticulate and discussed strategies for making him the face of the worker organizing.

In its 64-page complaint, Amazon said its safety measures “far exceed what is required under the law,” and it argued that federal law, not the state law enforced by the New York attorney general, had primary oversight for workplace safety concerns.

“The O.A.G. lacks the legal authority it purports to wield against Amazon,” the company said.

Amazon declined to comment beyond the filing.

Ms. James, in a statement, said the suit was “nothing more than a sad attempt to distract from the facts and shirk accountability for its failures to protect hardworking employees from a deadly virus.”

She said her office was reviewing its legal options. “Let me be clear: We will not be intimidated by anyone, especially corporate bullies that put profits over the health and safety of working people,” she said.

James Brudney, a labor law professor at Fordham University, said it was uncommon for companies to file the kind of “scorched earth” anticipatory suit that Amazon had.

“They want to fight,” he said about Amazon. “They always want to fight.”

Mr. Brudney said federal law does pre-empt state workplace safety enforcement in many cases, though there are exceptions Ms. James could argue.

“It seems reasonable to see whether the state can prove its case,” he said. He added that federal oversight had “failed terribly and tragically” to create and enforce pandemic workplace safety, so states have been stepping in to address the gaps.

Much of Amazon’s complaint details its pandemic response, including setting up temperature checks at entrances, providing masks and offering free testing on-site. It said that, by its calculations, 1.15 percent of its New York frontline employees had tested positive or been presumed positive for the coronavirus, about half the rate for the general population in the state.

The complaint also quoted from an email documenting the New York City Sheriff’s Office’s unannounced inspection of the Staten Island warehouse on March 30 that stated that Amazon “appeared to go above and beyond the current compliance requirements.”

Read original article here

Lawyer who defended Trump in first impeachment trial says he has “no idea” what new attorney is doing

Bruce L. Castor Jr. speaks on the Senate floor. Senate TV

Former President Trump’s lawyers are arguing now on the Senate floor against the constitutionality of the impeachment trial.

The lawyers who signed on to lead Trump’s impeachment defense team bring a curious history of experience. David Schoen, a seasoned civil and criminal lawyer, and Bruce L. Castor, Jr, a well-known lawyer and the former Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, district attorney, are defending him in the trial.

The lawyers, both of whom have legal careers peppered with curiosities, joined Trump’s team a day after five members of his defense left, effectively collapsing the team.

Trump’s lawyers are tasked with devising a defense strategy for a former President who faces the impeachment charge of inciting a deadly insurrection at the US Capitol, something that if convicted could also result in him being barred from holding federal office ever again.

For Schoen, whose website says he “focuses primarily on the litigation of complex civil and criminal cases before trial and appellate courts,” Trump is just the latest controversial figure his career has brought him to in recent years.

Schoen was on the team of lawyers representing Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime friend and former adviser, in the appeal of his conviction related to issues Stone took with the jury. Stone dropped that appeal after the then-President commuted his prison sentence, but before Stone received a full presidential pardon for convictions, including lying to Congress to protect Trump.

Schoen, who holds a master of laws from Columbia University and a juris doctorate from Boston College, according to his biography, serves as chair of the American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the Civil Rights Litigation Committee.

Castor, meanwhile, served as Montgomery County district attorney from 2000 to 2008, before serving two terms as the county commissioner, according to a release from Trump’s office.

He was involved in at least one high-profile case as district attorney, when he declined in 2005 to prosecute Bill Cosby after Andrea Constand reported the actor had touched her inappropriately at his home in Montgomery County, citing “insufficient credible and admissible evidence.”

Cosby was later tried and convicted in 2018 for drugging and sexually assaulting Constand at his home in 2004, despite the fact that Castor argued during a pre-trial hearing that he’d already committed the state to not prosecuting the actor.

Read more about the lawyers here.

Read original article here