What may come next in inquiry with Trump's legal peril?

The Justice Department has told the federal magistrate judge who approved last week's search of former President Donald Trump's Palm Beach, Florida, home and office that releasing a copy of the sworn statement prosecutors used to apply for a search warrant would jeopardise multiple ongoing investigations and could harm national security.

Multiple news organisations asked Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhardt last week to unseal all materials relating to the warrant, which authorised FBI agents to search Mr Trump's home and office at his Mar-a-Lago resort for "any physical documents with classification markings," "information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national [defence] information or classified material," and "any government records created duplicatively."

Although the Justice Department had previously asked the judge to unseal the warrant itself, citing Mr Trump's public comments revealing the search of his property, prosecutors with the department's national security division said in a Monday court filing that they would not support making public the underlying affidavit on which Mr Reinhardt based his decision to allow the search, citing "a very different set of considerations" than whether to unseal the warrant itself.

Prosecutors acknowledged the public interest in getting the sealed affidavit, but stated that the government has a "compelling, overwhelming interest in safeguarding the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation."

They went on to say that releasing the affidavit would "cause significant and irreparable harm to this ongoing criminal investigation" by revealing "critically important and detailed investigative facts" like "highly sensitive information about witnesses, including witnesses interviewed by the government" and "specific investigative techniques."

Prosecutors also claimed that releasing the search warrant would reveal information that the government is compelled by law to keep secret because it involves grand jury testimony.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

The Justice Department has told the federal magistrate judge who approved last week's search of former President Donald Trump's Palm Beach, Florida, home and office that releasing a copy of the sworn statement prosecutors used to apply for a search warrant would jeopardise multiple ongoing investigations and could harm national security.

The Justice Department has told the federal magistrate judge who approved last week's search of former President Donald Trump's Palm Beach, Florida, home and office that releasing a copy of the sworn statement prosecutors used to apply for a search warrant would jeopardise multiple ongoing investigations and could harm national security. Multiple news organisations asked Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhardt last week to unseal all materials relating to the warrant, which authorised FBI agents to search Mr Trump's home and office at his Mar-a-Lago resort for "any physical documents with classification markings," "information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national [defence] information or classified material," and "any government records created duplicatively." Although the Justice Department had previously asked the judge to unseal the warrant itself, citing Mr Trump's public comments revealing the search of his property, prosecutors with the department's national security division said in a Monday court filing that they would not support making public the underlying affidavit on which Mr Reinhardt based his decision to allow the search, citing "a very different set of considerations" than whether to unseal the warrant itself. Prosecutors acknowledged the public interest in getting the sealed affidavit, but stated that the government has a "compelling, overwhelming interest in safeguarding the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation." They went on to say that releasing the affidavit would "cause significant and irreparable harm to this ongoing criminal investigation" by revealing "critically important and detailed investigative facts" like "highly sensitive information about witnesses, including witnesses interviewed by the government" and "specific investigative techniques." Prosecutors also claimed that releasing the search warrant would reveal information that the government is compelled by law to keep secret because it involves grand jury testimony. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US justice department opposes release of Donald Trump search affidavit

Saudi-born Canadian jihadist Mohammed Khalifa, who had confessed to conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organisation, was sentenced to life in prison in the United States.

Mohammed Khalifa belonged to the Islamic State group’s propaganda production unit and reportedly played a key role in narrating violent videos, the Justice Department informed. Khalifa, 39, had left Canada in 2013 to join the IS in Syria and was in the propaganda cell.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pentagon-says-us-drone-strike-kills-islamic-state-syria-chief-maher-al-agal-496833">Also Read:&nbsp;Pentagon says US drone strike kills Islamic State Syria chief Maher al-Agal</a>

Khalifa served as a lead translator in ISIS’s propaganda production and the English-speaking narrator on multiple violent ISIS videos, the US State Department revealed while adding that&nbsp;the productions narrated by Khalifa include two of the most “influential and exceptionally violent” ISIS propaganda videos named “Flames of War: Fighting Has Just Begun” in 2014, and “Flames of War II: Until the Final Hour,” distributed in 2017.

Watch:&nbsp;Islamic state 'Beatles' cell member convicted in US

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/islamic-state-beatles-cell-member-convicted-in-us-guilty-for-abuse-death-of-4-americans-471296/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Khalifa was also involved in the&nbsp;brutal hostage-taking and ransom demand campaign involving journalists and humanitarian aid workers in Syria, the US agency said.

“Khalifa engaged in fighting on behalf of ISIS and attacked an SDF position in Abu Badran, Syria,” the US Justice Department said. Khalifa surrendered to the SDF in 2019 and was taken into custody by the FBI last year.

In December last year, Khalifa pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organisation, resulting in death. The US informed that between August 2014 and February 2015, the Islamic state killed eight American, British and Japanese citizens in Syria as part of the hostage scheme.

(With inputs from Agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Saudi-born Canadian jihadist Mohammed Khalifa, who had confessed to conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organisation, was sentenced to life in prison in the United States.

Saudi-born Canadian jihadist Mohammed Khalifa, who had confessed to conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organisation, was sentenced to life in prison in the United States. Mohammed Khalifa belonged to the Islamic State group’s propaganda production unit and reportedly played a key role in narrating violent videos, the Justice Department informed. Khalifa, 39, had left Canada in 2013 to join the IS in Syria and was in the propaganda cell. Also Read: Pentagon says US drone strike kills Islamic State Syria chief Maher al-Agal Khalifa served as a lead translator in ISIS’s propaganda production and the English-speaking narrator on multiple violent ISIS videos, the US State Department revealed while adding that the productions narrated by Khalifa include two of the most “influential and exceptionally violent” ISIS propaganda videos named “Flames of War: Fighting Has Just Begun” in 2014, and “Flames of War II: Until the Final Hour,” distributed in 2017. Watch: Islamic state 'Beatles' cell member convicted in US Khalifa was also involved in the brutal hostage-taking and ransom demand campaign involving journalists and humanitarian aid workers in Syria, the US agency said. “Khalifa engaged in fighting on behalf of ISIS and attacked an SDF position in Abu Badran, Syria,” the US Justice Department said. Khalifa surrendered to the SDF in 2019 and was taken into custody by the FBI last year. In December last year, Khalifa pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organisation, resulting in death. The US informed that between August 2014 and February 2015, the Islamic state killed eight American, British and Japanese citizens in Syria as part of the hostage scheme. (With inputs from Agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

US sentences Islamic State's Saudi-born Canadian terrorist to life imprisonment

In connection to the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, the US Justice Department on Wednesday obtained a new warrant to search the phone of John Eastman, Donald Trump's lawyer. &nbsp;

The investigators stated that a fresh warrant was needed to search the divide, having already obtained one to take the device. According to a request filed in the court, the new warrant included a 'filter protocol' that would limit the access to the privileged material and other “evidence of specific federal crimes or specific types of material.”&nbsp;

Reportedly, investigators had seized Eastman's phone last month in Virginia when he was leaving a restaurant. At the time, Eastman objected to his phone being searched but District Judge Robert Brack stated that the FBI had the authority to unlock his phone.&nbsp;

Eastman is one of the key figures in the investigation as the Justice Department believes that he, along with then President Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election results.

It is important to note that Eastman was one of the few people to give a speech at a rally where Trump alleged election fraud and persuaded his supporters to march on the Capitol.&nbsp;

Watch: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/jan-6-riots-committee-aims-to-detail-what-trump-did-during-the-187-minutes-in-the-oval-office-499540">Jan 6 riots committee aims to detail what Trump did during the 187 minutes in the oval office</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/jan-6-riots-committee-aims-to-detail-what-trump-did-during-the-187-minutes-in-the-oval-office-499540/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Congressional committee holds Trump responsible for January 6 events

The congressional committee looking into the insurrection attempt has already made it clear that Donald Trump should be held legally responsible for a shameful breach of his presidential duties.&nbsp;

AFP reports that a damning revelation by the chief lawyer for the White House Pat Cipollone disclosed to the committee that the president was even urged by advisers to release a statement ordering people out of the Capitol.

Read More:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/he-lied-he-bullied-he-betrayed-his-oath-jan-6-committee-says-trump-needs-to-be-held-accountable-499601">`He lied, he bullied, he betrayed his oath`, Jan 6 committee says Trump needs to be held accountable</a>

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1  width=&quot;100%&quot;"></iframe>

In connection to the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, the US Justice Department on Wednesday obtained a new warrant to search the phone of John Eastman, Donald Trump's lawyer.

In connection to the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, the US Justice Department on Wednesday obtained a new warrant to search the phone of John Eastman, Donald Trump's lawyer. The investigators stated that a fresh warrant was needed to search the divide, having already obtained one to take the device. According to a request filed in the court, the new warrant included a 'filter protocol' that would limit the access to the privileged material and other “evidence of specific federal crimes or specific types of material.” Reportedly, investigators had seized Eastman's phone last month in Virginia when he was leaving a restaurant. At the time, Eastman objected to his phone being searched but District Judge Robert Brack stated that the FBI had the authority to unlock his phone. Eastman is one of the key figures in the investigation as the Justice Department believes that he, along with then President Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. It is important to note that Eastman was one of the few people to give a speech at a rally where Trump alleged election fraud and persuaded his supporters to march on the Capitol. Watch: Jan 6 riots committee aims to detail what Trump did during the 187 minutes in the oval office × Congressional committee holds Trump responsible for January 6 events The congressional committee looking into the insurrection attempt has already made it clear that Donald Trump should be held legally responsible for a shameful breach of his presidential duties. AFP reports that a damning revelation by the chief lawyer for the White House Pat Cipollone disclosed to the committee that the president was even urged by advisers to release a statement ordering people out of the Capitol. Read More: `He lied, he bullied, he betrayed his oath`, Jan 6 committee says Trump needs to be held accountable (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

US Justice Department gets a fresh warrant to search Trump lawyer's phone

Amid crackdown on Russian oligarchs, the US government ordered the seizure of two aircraft owned by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich.

The US justice department said the two aircraft - Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner and Gulfstream G650ER - violated US export controls.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-defence-ministry-says-attack-on-kyiv-likely-attempt-to-disrupt-western-arms-485719">Also Read:&nbsp;UK defence ministry says recent attack on Kyiv likely attempt to disrupt western arms</a>

However, reports claim the aircraft are out of reach of US enforcement even though "active steps" are being taken by authorities to track and seize them.

The US warrant said the Boeing and the Gulfstream each were flown from a foreign country to Russia.

"The Boeing was flown to Russia on March 4, 2022 without a BIS license and without a license exception, and is now in the United Arab Emirates," it said.

Watch:&nbsp;Sanctions war between Russia and US

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/sanctions-war-between-russia-and-us-russia-imposes-personal-sanctions-on-61-top-us-officials-486036/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

According to the filing, the Gulfstream was flown to Russia on March 12-15 and remains in the country.

The seizure warrant further said that the Boeing and Gulfstream were owned by Roman Abramovich through a "series of shell companies in Cyprus, Jersey and the British Virgin Islands."

The Boeing is reportedly worth approximately $350 million and the Gulfstream is worth approximately $60 million, the US authorities informed.

(With inputs from Agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Amid crackdown on Russian oligarchs, the US government ordered the seizure of two aircraft owned by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich. The US justice department said the two aircraft - Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner and Gulfstream G650ER - violated US export controls.

Amid crackdown on Russian oligarchs, the US government ordered the seizure of two aircraft owned by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich. The US justice department said the two aircraft - Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner and Gulfstream G650ER - violated US export controls. Also Read: UK defence ministry says recent attack on Kyiv likely attempt to disrupt western arms However, reports claim the aircraft are out of reach of US enforcement even though "active steps" are being taken by authorities to track and seize them. The US warrant said the Boeing and the Gulfstream each were flown from a foreign country to Russia. "The Boeing was flown to Russia on March 4, 2022 without a BIS license and without a license exception, and is now in the United Arab Emirates," it said. Watch: Sanctions war between Russia and US According to the filing, the Gulfstream was flown to Russia on March 12-15 and remains in the country. The seizure warrant further said that the Boeing and Gulfstream were owned by Roman Abramovich through a "series of shell companies in Cyprus, Jersey and the British Virgin Islands." The Boeing is reportedly worth approximately $350 million and the Gulfstream is worth approximately $60 million, the US authorities informed. (With inputs from Agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US government orders seizure of aircraft owned by Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich

The US Justice Department has said that the wife of a nuclear engineer has pleaded guilty in a scheme to sell US naval secrets to a foreign country.

Diana Toebbe entered the plea in federal court in Martinsburg to one count of conspiracy to communicate restricted data. Prosecutors said they would seek a prison term of up to three years at sentencing.

According to the charges, she acted as a lookout while her husband delivered highly classified information on nuclear submarine technology to the buyer in a series of surreptitious "dead drops" in the region around their Annapolis, Maryland home.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/did-us-government-agencies-ask-whatsapp-to-help-agencies-spy-on-users-in-secret-445762">Also read |&nbsp;Did US government agencies ask WhatsApp to help agencies spy on users in secret?</a>

A teacher at a private school, she initially pleaded innocent to the charge of conspiracy to communicate restricted data.

Her husband, Jonathan, a Navy nuclear engineer, pleaded guilty Monday to passing information about American nuclear-powered warships to someone he thought was a representative of a foreign government but who was actually an undercover FBI agent.

Court documents described a tantalising, spy-novel-like plot in which they traveled hundreds of miles to secretly hand over information, took payments in cryptocurrencies, and followed signals made from an embassy building in Washington.

In one message to the "buyers" Toebbe indicated that he had been considering his actions for several years and was happy to work with "a reliable professional partner."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/technology-giants-spy-on-staff-to-prevent-unionising-report-says-441951">Also read |&nbsp;Technology giants spy on staff to prevent unionising, report says</a>

He also wrote that he had divided all the data he had collected into 51 "packages" of information, and sought $100,000 for each.

But the FBI was following the plot, after having been alerted to it by the target country in December 2020,&nbsp;though that was nearly nine months after the Toebbes first mailed their offer to the country's military intelligence.

Diana Toebbe was charged with acting as a lookout at several prearranged “dead-drop” locations at which memory cards containing the secret information were left behind.&nbsp;

In pleading guilty to the same charge as his wife, Jonathan Toebbe, 43, faces a potential punishment between roughly 12 and 17 years in prison, a sentencing range agreed to be lawyers.

Prosecutors said he abused his access to top-secret government information and repeatedly sold details about the design elements and performance characteristics of Virginia-class submarines.

Jonathan Toebbe acknowledged during his plea hearing that he conspired with his wife to pass classified information to a foreign government in exchange for money with the intent to “injure the United States.”

During a December hearing, Diana Toebbe’s lawyers denied prosecution assertions that cited 2019 messages exchanged by the couple in which she had contemplated fleeing the United States to avoid arrest. Instead, the defence said it was contempt for then-President Donald Trump as the reason behind the couple’s emigration plans.

(With inputs from agencies)

The US Justice Department has said that the wife of a nuclear engineer has pleaded guilty in a scheme to sell US naval secrets to a foreign country. Diana Toebbe entered the plea in federal court in Martinsburg to one count of conspiracy to communicate restricted data.

The US Justice Department has said that the wife of a nuclear engineer has pleaded guilty in a scheme to sell US naval secrets to a foreign country. Diana Toebbe entered the plea in federal court in Martinsburg to one count of conspiracy to communicate restricted data. Prosecutors said they would seek a prison term of up to three years at sentencing. According to the charges, she acted as a lookout while her husband delivered highly classified information on nuclear submarine technology to the buyer in a series of surreptitious "dead drops" in the region around their Annapolis, Maryland home. Also read | Did US government agencies ask WhatsApp to help agencies spy on users in secret? A teacher at a private school, she initially pleaded innocent to the charge of conspiracy to communicate restricted data. Her husband, Jonathan, a Navy nuclear engineer, pleaded guilty Monday to passing information about American nuclear-powered warships to someone he thought was a representative of a foreign government but who was actually an undercover FBI agent. Court documents described a tantalising, spy-novel-like plot in which they traveled hundreds of miles to secretly hand over information, took payments in cryptocurrencies, and followed signals made from an embassy building in Washington. In one message to the "buyers" Toebbe indicated that he had been considering his actions for several years and was happy to work with "a reliable professional partner." Also read | Technology giants spy on staff to prevent unionising, report says He also wrote that he had divided all the data he had collected into 51 "packages" of information, and sought $100,000 for each. But the FBI was following the plot, after having been alerted to it by the target country in December 2020, though that was nearly nine months after the Toebbes first mailed their offer to the country's military intelligence. Diana Toebbe was charged with acting as a lookout at several prearranged “dead-drop” locations at which memory cards containing the secret information were left behind. In pleading guilty to the same charge as his wife, Jonathan Toebbe, 43, faces a potential punishment between roughly 12 and 17 years in prison, a sentencing range agreed to be lawyers. Prosecutors said he abused his access to top-secret government information and repeatedly sold details about the design elements and performance characteristics of Virginia-class submarines. Jonathan Toebbe acknowledged during his plea hearing that he conspired with his wife to pass classified information to a foreign government in exchange for money with the intent to “injure the United States.” During a December hearing, Diana Toebbe’s lawyers denied prosecution assertions that cited 2019 messages exchanged by the couple in which she had contemplated fleeing the United States to avoid arrest. Instead, the defence said it was contempt for then-President Donald Trump as the reason behind the couple’s emigration plans. (With inputs from agencies)

United States: Nuclear engineer's wife pleads guilty in nuclear submarine secrets plot

A man in Texas has been imprisoned for nine years for using his coronavirus relief funds for purchasing a Lamborghini car and a Rolex watch.

According to the US Justice Department, Lee Price III had acquired $1.6 million by submitting fake Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan applications.

The 30-year-old laundered money and committed wire fraud by opening three shell companies as a front to hide his illegal activities.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/vignesh-sundaresan-buys-nft-for-69-million-people-can-download-it-for-free-433242" hreflang="en">Vignesh Sundaresan buys NFT for $69 million; people can download it for free</a>

The Department of Justice said Price had submitted a fake driver's license and tax records to substantiate his loan requests.

His attorney Tom Berg said, "Mr. Price recognises that the stiff sentence imposed today by Judge Gilmore was triggered both by his fraudulent conduct in this PPP loan case and by the rather ragged criminal history he brought to the table."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-tested-covid-positive-three-days-before-biden-debate-claims-ex-chief-of-staff-in-book-433258" hreflang="en">Donald Trump tested Covid-positive three days before Biden debate, claims ex-chief of staff in book</a>

"The Court found that he did fully accept responsibility by unconditionally pleading guilty to the indictment," he added.

The relief programmes for COVID-19 were started to provide financial aids to the victims suffering from the novel virus. They ended on May 31, 2021.

While 474 people have been charged with crimes related to these programmes, the government has suffered a setback of over half a billion dollars in fraud.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

A man in Texas has been imprisoned for nine years for using his coronavirus relief funds for purchasing a Lamborghini car and a Rolex watch. According to the US Justice Department, Lee Price III had acquired $1.

A man in Texas has been imprisoned for nine years for using his coronavirus relief funds for purchasing a Lamborghini car and a Rolex watch. According to the US Justice Department, Lee Price III had acquired $1.6 million by submitting fake Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan applications. The 30-year-old laundered money and committed wire fraud by opening three shell companies as a front to hide his illegal activities. Also read | Vignesh Sundaresan buys NFT for $69 million; people can download it for free The Department of Justice said Price had submitted a fake driver's license and tax records to substantiate his loan requests. His attorney Tom Berg said, "Mr. Price recognises that the stiff sentence imposed today by Judge Gilmore was triggered both by his fraudulent conduct in this PPP loan case and by the rather ragged criminal history he brought to the table." Also read | Donald Trump tested Covid-positive three days before Biden debate, claims ex-chief of staff in book "The Court found that he did fully accept responsibility by unconditionally pleading guilty to the indictment," he added. The relief programmes for COVID-19 were started to provide financial aids to the victims suffering from the novel virus. They ended on May 31, 2021. While 474 people have been charged with crimes related to these programmes, the government has suffered a setback of over half a billion dollars in fraud. (With inputs from agencies)

Texas: Man uses COVID-19 relief funds to buy Lamborghini, Rolex; imprisoned for 9 years

In the ongoing fight over reproductive rights in the United States, now President Joe Biden's administration has asked the US Supreme Court to strike down a Texas abortion law.

In a statement, the Justice Department said Texas' law violated the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which enshrined a woman's right to an abortion.

The department said in its request to the nation's highest court that keeping the Texas law in effect would "perpetuate the ongoing irreparable harm" caused to thousands of Texas women who are being denied their constitutional rights.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/justice-dept-to-ask-supreme-court-to-block-texas-near-total-abortion-ban-421139" hreflang="en">Justice dept to ask Supreme Court to block Texas’ near-total abortion ban</a>

This latest legal move is part of the fight against Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) or the 'Texas Heartbeat Act', which bans abortions after six weeks.

According to the Texas Heartbeat Act, members of the public can sue any doctor who performs abortions, or anyone who assists in their facilitation, once a heartbeat is detected in the womb, usually about six weeks after conception.&nbsp;

In essence, the law provides a bounty, as someone who reports a crime can be rewarded with 10,000 dollars for initiating a prosecution. Some have argued the bounty allows for and encourages vigilantism.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-blocks-abortion-law-in-texas-418771">US judge blocks abortion law in Texas</a>

Calling the law "flagrantly unconstitutional", on September 1, federal district court judge Robert Pitman issued a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of the Texas law.

"This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right," Pitman said in his blistering decision.

However, a few days later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reinstated the Texas law pending a full hearing in December.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-appeals-court-allows-texas-to-resume-ban-on-abortions-419315">US appeals court allows Texas to resume ban on abortions</a>

The Justice Department said in its filing on Monday that the Supreme Court should reverse the appeals court's decision.

Last month, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court declined to intervene to block the Texas law that makes no exceptions for rape or incest, citing procedural issues.

Watch&nbsp;|&nbsp;Rallies held across the US against abortion ban

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rallies-held-across-the-us-against-abortion-ban-417809/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The Texas law is seen as part of a sweeping conservative movement to restrict abortions throughout the country, and this has prompted a backlash in the public.

In other Republican-led states, abortion restrictions have been passed, but have been struck down by the courts due to Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the right to abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, which is typically between 22 and 24 weeks.

In the ongoing fight over reproductive rights in the United States, now President Joe Biden's administration has asked the US Supreme Court to strike down a Texas abortion law.

In the ongoing fight over reproductive rights in the United States, now President Joe Biden's administration has asked the US Supreme Court to strike down a Texas abortion law. In a statement, the Justice Department said Texas' law violated the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which enshrined a woman's right to an abortion. The department said in its request to the nation's highest court that keeping the Texas law in effect would "perpetuate the ongoing irreparable harm" caused to thousands of Texas women who are being denied their constitutional rights. Also Read: Justice dept to ask Supreme Court to block Texas’ near-total abortion ban This latest legal move is part of the fight against Texas Senate Bill 8 (SB8) or the 'Texas Heartbeat Act', which bans abortions after six weeks. According to the Texas Heartbeat Act, members of the public can sue any doctor who performs abortions, or anyone who assists in their facilitation, once a heartbeat is detected in the womb, usually about six weeks after conception. In essence, the law provides a bounty, as someone who reports a crime can be rewarded with 10,000 dollars for initiating a prosecution. Some have argued the bounty allows for and encourages vigilantism. Also read | US judge blocks abortion law in Texas Calling the law "flagrantly unconstitutional", on September 1, federal district court judge Robert Pitman issued a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of the Texas law. "This court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right," Pitman said in his blistering decision. However, a few days later, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reinstated the Texas law pending a full hearing in December. Also read | US appeals court allows Texas to resume ban on abortions The Justice Department said in its filing on Monday that the Supreme Court should reverse the appeals court's decision. Last month, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court declined to intervene to block the Texas law that makes no exceptions for rape or incest, citing procedural issues. Watch | Rallies held across the US against abortion ban The Texas law is seen as part of a sweeping conservative movement to restrict abortions throughout the country, and this has prompted a backlash in the public. In other Republican-led states, abortion restrictions have been passed, but have been struck down by the courts due to Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the right to abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, which is typically between 22 and 24 weeks.

Texas abortion law 'perpetuates the ongoing irreparable harm', US Justice dept asks SC to strike it down

Calling abortion law in Texas ''clearly unconstitutional,'' the US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the state.

"This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear," US attorney general Merrick Garland told the reporters.

Earlier, US President Joe Biden had slammed the Texas abortion law and said it creates an ''almost un-American'' vigilante system.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/joe-biden-lashes-out-at-us-supreme-court-for-texas-abortion-law-410322">Also read |&nbsp;Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law</a>

While Vice President Kamala Harris had said ''the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable."&nbsp;

Despite massive protest, the US Supreme Court had refused to block the near-total ban on abortion, setting the stage for an intervention by the Justice Department.

The harshest abortion law in the US, called the ''Texas Heartbeat Act'' took effect on September 1.

Under the law, abortion is banned once the heartbeat of a child is detected, usually near six weeks of pregnancy. It faced massive backlash as it makes no exceptions for rape or incest.

People in Texas are allowed to sue the doctors who perform the procedure as well as report drivers who drop clients to abortion clinics.

The harshest abortion&nbsp;law in the US was passed by Republican lawmakers in Texas which is the country's second-largest state.

Calling abortion law in Texas ''clearly unconstitutional,'' the US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the state. "This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear," US attorney general Merrick Garland told the reporters.

Calling abortion law in Texas ''clearly unconstitutional,'' the US Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the state. "This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans, whatever their politics or party, should fear," US attorney general Merrick Garland told the reporters. Earlier, US President Joe Biden had slammed the Texas abortion law and said it creates an ''almost un-American'' vigilante system. Also read | Joe Biden lashes out at US supreme court for Texas abortion law While Vice President Kamala Harris had said ''the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable." Despite massive protest, the US Supreme Court had refused to block the near-total ban on abortion, setting the stage for an intervention by the Justice Department. The harshest abortion law in the US, called the ''Texas Heartbeat Act'' took effect on September 1. Under the law, abortion is banned once the heartbeat of a child is detected, usually near six weeks of pregnancy. It faced massive backlash as it makes no exceptions for rape or incest. People in Texas are allowed to sue the doctors who perform the procedure as well as report drivers who drop clients to abortion clinics. The harshest abortion law in the US was passed by Republican lawmakers in Texas which is the country's second-largest state.

'Clearly unconstitutional': US Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law

The US Justice Department has sued Texas over a new state law that bans most abortions, arguing that it was enacted “in open defiance of the Constitution.”

US Justice Department sues Texas over state's new abortion law

The Russian hackers behind the massive SolarWinds cyberespionage campaign broke into the email accounts of some of the most prominent federal prosecutors' offices around the country last year, the Justice Department said Friday.

The department said 80 per cent of Microsoft email accounts used by employees in the four US attorney offices in New York were breached. All told, the Justice Department said 27 US Attorney offices had at least one employee's email account compromised during the hacking campaign.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/biden-budget-sets-aside-750-million-for-solarwinds-response-388143">Biden budget sets aside $750 million for SolarWinds response</a>

The Justice Department said in a statement that it believes the accounts were compromised from May 7 to December 27, 2020. Such a timeframe is notable because the SolarWinds campaign, which infiltrated dozens of private-sector companies and thinktanks as well as at least nine US government agencies, was first discovered and publicized in mid-December.

The Biden administration in April announced sanctions, including the expulsion of Russian diplomats, in response to the SolarWinds hack and Russian interference in the 2020 US presidential election. Russia has denied wrongdoing.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-eyes-more-stable-profitable-ties-with-russia-blinken-tells-paper-394666">US eyes more stable, profitable ties with Russia, Blinken tells paper</a>

Jennifer Rodgers, a lecturer at Columbia Law School, said office emails frequently contained all sorts of sensitive information, including case strategy discussions and names of confidential informants, when she was a federal prosecutor in New York.

"I don't remember ever having someone bring me a document instead of emailing it to me because of security concerns,"&nbsp;she said, noting exceptions for classified materials.

The Administrative Office of US Courts confirmed in January that it was also breached, giving the SolarWinds hackers another entry point to steal confidential information like trade secrets, espionage targets, whistleblower reports and arrest warrants.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/biden-if-us-has-real-shooting-war-it-could-be-result-of-cyber-attacks-401055">Biden: If US has 'real shooting war' it could be result of cyber attacks</a>

The list of affected offices includes several large and high-profile ones like those in Los Angeles, Miami, Washington and the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, where large numbers of staff were hit, handle some of the most prominent prosecutors in the country.

"New York is the financial centre of the world and those districts are particularly well known for investigating and prosecuting white-collar crimes and other cases, including investigating people close to the former president,"&nbsp;said Bruce Green, a professor at Fordham Law School and a former prosecutor in the Southern District.

The department said all victims had been notified and it is working to mitigate "operational, security and privacy risks"&nbsp;caused by the hack. The Justice Department said in January that it had no indication that any classified systems were impacted.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/microsoft-says-solarwinds-hackers-again-targetting-government-agencies-with-phishing-388020">Microsoft says SolarWinds hackers again targetting government agencies with phishing</a>

The Justice Department did not provide additional detail about what kind of information was taken and what impact such a hack may have on ongoing cases. Members of Congress have expressed frustration with the Biden administration for not sharing more information about the impact of the SolarWinds campaign.

The Associated Press previously reported that SolarWinds hackers had gained access to email accounts belonging to the then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and members of the department's cybersecurity staff whose jobs included hunting threats from foreign countries.

The Russian hackers behind the massive SolarWinds cyberespionage campaign broke into the email accounts of some of the most prominent federal prosecutors' offices around the country last year, the Justice Department said Friday.

The Russian hackers behind the massive SolarWinds cyberespionage campaign broke into the email accounts of some of the most prominent federal prosecutors' offices around the country last year, the Justice Department said Friday. The department said 80 per cent of Microsoft email accounts used by employees in the four US attorney offices in New York were breached. All told, the Justice Department said 27 US Attorney offices had at least one employee's email account compromised during the hacking campaign. Also read | Biden budget sets aside $750 million for SolarWinds response The Justice Department said in a statement that it believes the accounts were compromised from May 7 to December 27, 2020. Such a timeframe is notable because the SolarWinds campaign, which infiltrated dozens of private-sector companies and thinktanks as well as at least nine US government agencies, was first discovered and publicized in mid-December. The Biden administration in April announced sanctions, including the expulsion of Russian diplomats, in response to the SolarWinds hack and Russian interference in the 2020 US presidential election. Russia has denied wrongdoing. Also read | US eyes more stable, profitable ties with Russia, Blinken tells paper Jennifer Rodgers, a lecturer at Columbia Law School, said office emails frequently contained all sorts of sensitive information, including case strategy discussions and names of confidential informants, when she was a federal prosecutor in New York. "I don't remember ever having someone bring me a document instead of emailing it to me because of security concerns," she said, noting exceptions for classified materials. The Administrative Office of US Courts confirmed in January that it was also breached, giving the SolarWinds hackers another entry point to steal confidential information like trade secrets, espionage targets, whistleblower reports and arrest warrants. Also read | Biden: If US has 'real shooting war' it could be result of cyber attacks The list of affected offices includes several large and high-profile ones like those in Los Angeles, Miami, Washington and the Eastern District of Virginia. The Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, where large numbers of staff were hit, handle some of the most prominent prosecutors in the country. "New York is the financial centre of the world and those districts are particularly well known for investigating and prosecuting white-collar crimes and other cases, including investigating people close to the former president," said Bruce Green, a professor at Fordham Law School and a former prosecutor in the Southern District. The department said all victims had been notified and it is working to mitigate "operational, security and privacy risks" caused by the hack. The Justice Department said in January that it had no indication that any classified systems were impacted. Also read | Microsoft says SolarWinds hackers again targetting government agencies with phishing The Justice Department did not provide additional detail about what kind of information was taken and what impact such a hack may have on ongoing cases. Members of Congress have expressed frustration with the Biden administration for not sharing more information about the impact of the SolarWinds campaign. The Associated Press previously reported that SolarWinds hackers had gained access to email accounts belonging to the then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and members of the department's cybersecurity staff whose jobs included hunting threats from foreign countries.

US Justice Department: Federal prosecutors also targeted by Russian SolarWinds cyber espionage

Former US&nbsp;President Donald Trump pressured the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, according to internal documents released by the chair of the House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee on Friday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: <a href="https://twitter.com/OversightDems?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@OversightDems</a> released notes taken by then-Acting Deputy AG Donoghue of a 12/27/20 call with Pres. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a> &amp; former Acting AG Rosen, revealing attempts by Trump to pressure the 2 most senior officials at the DOJ to help overturn the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/2020election?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#2020election</a> or risk losing their jobs.
— Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) <a href="https://twitter.com/OversightDems/status/1421131296462544902?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 30, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The department ultimately did not join the effort and numerous courts rejected lawsuits seeking to overturn election results in various states.

The handwritten notes, taken by then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, paint a damning picture of Trump as he desperately sought to get the Justice Department to take the unprecedented step of intervening in the 2020 presidential election, which he lost.

The notes of the December&nbsp;27 call, released Friday by the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee, underscore the lengths to which Trump went to overturn the results of the election and to elicit the support of law enforcement officials and other government leaders in that effort.

"Don't expect you to do that," Trump replied. "Just say that the election was corrupt and&nbsp;leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen," in a reference to Republicans.

The documents also show then-White House&nbsp;Chief of Staff Mark Meadows&nbsp;asking&nbsp;Justice Department officials to investigate an unfounded conspiracy theory called "Italygate" alleging that US&nbsp;electoral data was changed in Italian facilities with the knowledge of the CIA.

The fact that the Justice Department allowed the handwritten notes to be turned over the congressional investigators marks a dramatic shift from the Trump administration, which repeatedly invoked executive privilege as a means of skirting congressional scrutiny.

(With inputs from agencies)

Former US President Donald Trump pressured the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, according to internal documents released by the chair of the House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee on Friday.

Former US President Donald Trump pressured the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, according to internal documents released by the chair of the House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee on Friday. NEW: @OversightDems released notes taken by then-Acting Deputy AG Donoghue of a 12/27/20 call with Pres. #Trump & former Acting AG Rosen, revealing attempts by Trump to pressure the 2 most senior officials at the DOJ to help overturn the #2020election or risk losing their jobs. — Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) July 30, 2021 × The department ultimately did not join the effort and numerous courts rejected lawsuits seeking to overturn election results in various states. The handwritten notes, taken by then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, paint a damning picture of Trump as he desperately sought to get the Justice Department to take the unprecedented step of intervening in the 2020 presidential election, which he lost. The notes of the December 27 call, released Friday by the Democratic-led House Oversight Committee, underscore the lengths to which Trump went to overturn the results of the election and to elicit the support of law enforcement officials and other government leaders in that effort. "Don't expect you to do that," Trump replied. "Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen," in a reference to Republicans. The documents also show then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows asking Justice Department officials to investigate an unfounded conspiracy theory called "Italygate" alleging that US electoral data was changed in Italian facilities with the knowledge of the CIA. The fact that the Justice Department allowed the handwritten notes to be turned over the congressional investigators marks a dramatic shift from the Trump administration, which repeatedly invoked executive privilege as a means of skirting congressional scrutiny. (With inputs from agencies)

Former US President Donald Trump urged Justice officials to declare election 'corrupt'

The United States Department of Justice on Wednesday announced a probe into the police practices in Minneapolis after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer&nbsp;was convicted of all three charges in relation to the murder of George Floyd, a black man who died after the officer knelt on his neck.

The announcement was made by US Attorney General Merrick Garland. Now, a civil investigation will take place in the workings of Minneapolis police department.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/former-cop-derek-chauvin-convicted-of-george-floyds-murder-378907/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"Today, I am announcing that the Justice Department has opened a civil investigation to determine whether the Minneapolis Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional or unlawful policing," AFP cited Garland as saying.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-ex-cop-derek-chauvin-found-guilty-of-murder-manslaughter-in-the-death-of-george-floyd-378898" hreflang="en">US ex-cop Derek Chauvin found guilty of murder, manslaughter in the death of George Floyd</a>

The civil probe will be different from the ongoing criminal investigation into the death of George Floyd. The new investigation will examine whether the police used excessive force on purpose, even during legal protests.

The probe will also take into account whether the police force exhibited a pattern of discrimination. In addition, it will look at whether the force indulged in unlawful treatment of people with health disabilities.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/entertainment/chris-evans-ellen-degeneres-cher-and-others-react-to-derek-chauvins-verdict-378982" hreflang="en">Chris Evans, Ellen DeGeneres, Cher and others react to Derek Chauvin's verdict</a>

If unlawful practices are found during the investigation, a civil lawsuit could be filed against the police force, compelling them to make sweeping reforms in the police department.

"The Justice department will be unwavering in its pursuit of equal justice under law," Garland added.

(With inputs from agencies)

The United States Department of Justice on Wednesday announced a probe into the police practices in Minneapolis after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer was convicted of all three charges in relation to the murder of George Floyd, a black man who died after the officer knelt on his neck.

The United States Department of Justice on Wednesday announced a probe into the police practices in Minneapolis after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer was convicted of all three charges in relation to the murder of George Floyd, a black man who died after the officer knelt on his neck. The announcement was made by US Attorney General Merrick Garland. Now, a civil investigation will take place in the workings of Minneapolis police department. "Today, I am announcing that the Justice Department has opened a civil investigation to determine whether the Minneapolis Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional or unlawful policing," AFP cited Garland as saying. Also read: US ex-cop Derek Chauvin found guilty of murder, manslaughter in the death of George Floyd The civil probe will be different from the ongoing criminal investigation into the death of George Floyd. The new investigation will examine whether the police used excessive force on purpose, even during legal protests. The probe will also take into account whether the police force exhibited a pattern of discrimination. In addition, it will look at whether the force indulged in unlawful treatment of people with health disabilities. Also read: Chris Evans, Ellen DeGeneres, Cher and others react to Derek Chauvin's verdict If unlawful practices are found during the investigation, a civil lawsuit could be filed against the police force, compelling them to make sweeping reforms in the police department. "The Justice department will be unwavering in its pursuit of equal justice under law," Garland added. (With inputs from agencies)

US Justice Department to probe police practices in Minneapolis after George Floyd verdict

The Justice Department continued building cases Wednesday against people accused of storming the Capitol, arresting a leader of the far-right group the Proud Boys and charging two men with conspiracy in an effort to block certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in the election.

Ethan Nordean, self-described “sergeant of arms” of the Seattle chapter of the Proud Boys, was arrested Wednesday morning, federal prosecutors said. He had been under investigation for more than a week after prosecutors named him in court papers as a chief organizer of a mob of about 100 other members of the group that marched through Washington on Jan. 6, ending at the Capitol building.

Separately, Nicholas DeCarlo, a 30-year-old Texas man, and Nicholas Ochs, a founder of Hawaii’s chapter of the Proud Boys, were charged with conspiring with one another and unnamed co-conspirators to stop the certification of Biden’s Electoral College win as part of last month’s riot at the Capitol, according to the indictment.

The case against DeCarlo and Ochs was announced by John Demers, head of the Justice Department’s national security division, the U.S. attorney in Washington and the FBI’s Washington field office.

Their indictments highlighted the government’s effort to bring more serious charges against some of the scores of people who were initially charged with lesser crimes after the attack. The two men had earlier been charged with unlawful entry and obstructing an official proceeding.

DeCarlo and Ochs were charged in an indictment with conspiring with others to create a plan to stop Congress, raising money online to fund travel to Washington to carry out their plan, crossing state lines to obstruct Congress and forcibly storming the Capitol building.

Combined with the separate charges against Nordean, the indictment against Ochs and DeCarlo underscored the increasingly prominent role that the Proud Boys are accused of playing in the assault.

Leaders of the Proud Boys have sought to distance themselves from the riots, even as federal investigators scrutinize them as they seek to determine the full scope of the group’s involvement.

In the indictment against DeCarlo and Ochs, prosecutors said the men carved the words “MURDER THE MEDIA” into the Capitol’s Memorial Door.

The case is part of a strike force created by Michael Sherwin, the U.S. attorney in Washington, to examine violent actions that targeted members of the news media, the Justice Department said. Sherwin said at a recent news conference that it was “the height of hypocrisy” to attack journalists while invoking the First Amendment to justify illegally entering the Capitol.

DeCarlo was also seen in photos taken inside the Capitol during the riots wearing a shirt and hat that said “MT Media,” which investigators said stands for “Murder the Media.”

Prosecutors say that Nordean, carrying a bullhorn, led a 100-person mob and entered the Capitol with another top-ranking Proud Boys leader, Joseph Biggs, who is also facing charges in connection with the attack.

In a criminal complaint against Nordean, prosecutors said he and other Proud Boys “were planning in advance to organize a group that would attempt to overwhelm police barricades and enter” the Capitol.

The 21-page complaint also said that, before marching on the building, Nordean had a brief exchange with another man charged in the assault, Robert Gieswein, of Woodland Park, Colorado, who has been accused of being a member of the far-right militia the Three Percenters.

Nordean, 30, of Auburn, Washington, was near the front of a crowd of rioters that confronted an outnumbered detachment of Capitol Police officers Jan. 6, prosecutors said. Moving past the officers, prosecutors said, he and other members of the Proud Boys forced their way into the building.

Before the attack on the Capitol, Nordean gave hints of an “intent to organize a group that intended to engage in conflict,” according to a news release issued Wednesday by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington.

In late December, for example, he posted a message asking for donations of “protective gear” and “communications equipment,” prosecutors said. About a week later, prosecutors added, Nordean posted a video online, discussing what he described as “blatant rampant voter fraud” and saying that the Proud Boys were going to “bring back that original spirit of 1776 of what really established the character of what America is.”

After the assault, prosecutors say, Nordean continued writing inflammatory messages.

On Jan. 8, they said, he posted a photo on social media showing a police officer spraying pepper spray. The caption read, “If you feel bad for the police, you are part of the problem.”

The Justice Department continued building cases Wednesday against people accused of storming the Capitol, arresting a leader of the far-right group the Proud Boys and charging two men with conspiracy in an effort to block certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in the election.

The Justice Department continued building cases Wednesday against people accused of storming the Capitol, arresting a leader of the far-right group the Proud Boys and charging two men with conspiracy in an effort to block certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in the election. Ethan Nordean, self-described “sergeant of arms” of the Seattle chapter of the Proud Boys, was arrested Wednesday morning, federal prosecutors said. He had been under investigation for more than a week after prosecutors named him in court papers as a chief organizer of a mob of about 100 other members of the group that marched through Washington on Jan. 6, ending at the Capitol building. Separately, Nicholas DeCarlo, a 30-year-old Texas man, and Nicholas Ochs, a founder of Hawaii’s chapter of the Proud Boys, were charged with conspiring with one another and unnamed co-conspirators to stop the certification of Biden’s Electoral College win as part of last month’s riot at the Capitol, according to the indictment. The case against DeCarlo and Ochs was announced by John Demers, head of the Justice Department’s national security division, the U.S. attorney in Washington and the FBI’s Washington field office. Their indictments highlighted the government’s effort to bring more serious charges against some of the scores of people who were initially charged with lesser crimes after the attack. The two men had earlier been charged with unlawful entry and obstructing an official proceeding. DeCarlo and Ochs were charged in an indictment with conspiring with others to create a plan to stop Congress, raising money online to fund travel to Washington to carry out their plan, crossing state lines to obstruct Congress and forcibly storming the Capitol building. Combined with the separate charges against Nordean, the indictment against Ochs and DeCarlo underscored the increasingly prominent role that the Proud Boys are accused of playing in the assault. Leaders of the Proud Boys have sought to distance themselves from the riots, even as federal investigators scrutinize them as they seek to determine the full scope of the group’s involvement. In the indictment against DeCarlo and Ochs, prosecutors said the men carved the words “MURDER THE MEDIA” into the Capitol’s Memorial Door. The case is part of a strike force created by Michael Sherwin, the U.S. attorney in Washington, to examine violent actions that targeted members of the news media, the Justice Department said. Sherwin said at a recent news conference that it was “the height of hypocrisy” to attack journalists while invoking the First Amendment to justify illegally entering the Capitol. DeCarlo was also seen in photos taken inside the Capitol during the riots wearing a shirt and hat that said “MT Media,” which investigators said stands for “Murder the Media.” Prosecutors say that Nordean, carrying a bullhorn, led a 100-person mob and entered the Capitol with another top-ranking Proud Boys leader, Joseph Biggs, who is also facing charges in connection with the attack. In a criminal complaint against Nordean, prosecutors said he and other Proud Boys “were planning in advance to organize a group that would attempt to overwhelm police barricades and enter” the Capitol. The 21-page complaint also said that, before marching on the building, Nordean had a brief exchange with another man charged in the assault, Robert Gieswein, of Woodland Park, Colorado, who has been accused of being a member of the far-right militia the Three Percenters. Nordean, 30, of Auburn, Washington, was near the front of a crowd of rioters that confronted an outnumbered detachment of Capitol Police officers Jan. 6, prosecutors said. Moving past the officers, prosecutors said, he and other members of the Proud Boys forced their way into the building. Before the attack on the Capitol, Nordean gave hints of an “intent to organize a group that intended to engage in conflict,” according to a news release issued Wednesday by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. In late December, for example, he posted a message asking for donations of “protective gear” and “communications equipment,” prosecutors said. About a week later, prosecutors added, Nordean posted a video online, discussing what he described as “blatant rampant voter fraud” and saying that the Proud Boys were going to “bring back that original spirit of 1776 of what really established the character of what America is.” After the assault, prosecutors say, Nordean continued writing inflammatory messages. On Jan. 8, they said, he posted a photo on social media showing a police officer spraying pepper spray. The caption read, “If you feel bad for the police, you are part of the problem.”

Justice Department unveils further charges in Capitol riot

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has embarked on an eleventh-hour bid to undo some civil rights protections for minority groups, women, people with disabilities and LGBT people, according to a draft document, in a change that would mark one of the most significant shifts in civil rights enforcement in generations.

The Justice Department has submitted for White House approval a change to how it enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. The regulation covers housing programs, employers, schools, hospitals, and other organizations and programs.

Under the change, the department would continue to narrowly enforce the law’s protections in cases where it could prove intentional discrimination, but no longer in instances where a policy or practice at issue had a “disparate impact” on minority or other groups.

Civil rights groups say that the disparate impact rule is one of their most important tools for showing discrimination because it takes into account patterns of behavior that can seem neutral and compare outcomes for different groups to reveal inequities. Such cases make up most discrimination litigation, as businesses and organizations rarely disclose that they are purposefully engaging in the practice.

But the Justice Department argued that its current approach to enforcing civil rights protections addressed “a vastly broader scope of conduct” than the statute itself prohibits, according to a copy of its draft proposal to amend the regulations obtained by The New York Times. The most substantial amendments to the rule would eliminate references to policies and practices having “the effect of” subjecting individuals to discrimination.

The move is the latest in the Trump administration’s efforts to pare back civil rights protections for minority and other groups. It has curtailed other regulations, reversed affirmative action policies and cut government diversity training. The Justice Department effort also dovetails with a decadeslong project in the conservative legal movement to push back on civil rights protections seen as going beyond the law.

The Justice Department quietly submitted the change to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Dec. 21, making it one of former Attorney General William Barr’s final acts. It did not make the language available for public review or comment, as is typically required in the federal rule-making process, citing an exception for matters related to agency loans, grants and contracts because the rule covers organizations that receive federal funding.

Should the revised language be put in place, as the White House is expected to do, progressive legal groups are likely to challenge it, setting up a potential review by a Supreme Court with a conservative majority seen as hostile to civil rights protections. The incoming Biden administration could not immediately reverse the move, but a new attorney general could put its implementation on hold.

A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The change would be the Justice Department’s first substantial amendment to how it defines discriminatory behavior in Title VI since 1973, according to the draft document.

That proposed change would have broad effect across the federal government because the Justice Department is responsible for defining how the law prohibits discrimination and the attorney general must approve other agencies’ related regulations. The draft rule noted a signature line for Barr.

“The regulation and explanation are exceedingly sparse, and it shows the dangers of rule-making without following the legally required process, including opportunities for public comment,” said Lauren Sampson, a staff attorney at Lawyers for Civil Rights.

She added that the department’s proposal incorrectly says that the Supreme Court has raised questions about disparate impact as not legally sound, when it has upheld as recently as 2015 disparate impact as a vital tool in the work of protecting civil rights.

A widely cited example of disparate impact has been the Jim Crow-era literacy tests that some states created as a condition to vote. The tests did not ask about race and so seemed neutral on their face. But they disproportionately prevented Black people from voting because they had long been forced out of schools and could not read. The tests are generally thought of as discriminatory because of that disparate impact on Black people.

More recently, the protections against disparate impact were crucial to Education Department investigations into disproportionate discipline rates among Black and Latino students in schools. It allowed the department’s Office for Civil Rights to “look at policies and take into account harmful outcomes,” said Shiwali Patel, senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Center, who worked in the office during the Obama and Trump administrations.

In several cases, the office found that schools were disciplining students differently by race.

“Disparate impact analysis is important to create accountability at schools around discriminatory discipline policies, particularly since it’s difficult to prove racially motivated intent behind the policies,” Patel said.

The Trump administration has long sought to eliminate protections for groups at risk of suffering such impacts, arguing that the Civil Rights Act as passed by Congress only safeguards against intentional acts of discrimination.

The administration had embraced the legal objections of conservative allies, including the widely influential Heritage Foundation, and had put the regulation on a list of anti-discrimination laws championed by the Obama administration whose regulations it planned to revise had President Donald Trump won a second term.

“Federal agencies are honeycombed with policies that adopt the disparate-impact approach, and the Trump administration needs to root them out,” Roger Clegg, the former president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank, wrote in The National Review in 2018.

The Trump administration has already signaled its objection to the concept and taken steps to undermine it.

In 2017, the administration closed a complaint from civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, alleging that the cancellation of a large transportation project in Maryland called the Red Line by Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, violated the Civil Rights Act because it disproportionately hurt the city’s Black residents. The Transportation Department shelved the complaint, which was opened on the last day of the Obama administration, without a finding or an explanation.

The most forceful denouncement of the regulation came in 2018, when the Trump administration essentially blamed an Obama-era guidance document that addressed the disproportionate discipline rates among children of color in the United States for the mass shooting carried out by a troubled white student in Parkland, Florida.

Trump administration officials sought extensively to link the document to the disparate impact doctrine. In the days before the Education and Justice departments rescinded the document in December 2018, a federal school safety commission headed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos issued a report recommending the guidance be withdrawn because it “relies on a disparate impact legal theory, but that theory lacks foundation in applicable law.” It called the document’s reading of the law “dubious, at best.”

Last fall, the Department of Housing and Urban Development completed a rule that would have weakened anti-discrimination policies regulating the mortgage industry.

The move drew a highly unusual request from the country’s four biggest banks — which would benefit from the proposed changes — that the department avoid rewriting the requirements. The federal government “should acknowledge that Americans’ attention to racial discrimination is more pronounced and expansive,” Michael DeVito, Wells Fargo’s executive vice president for home lending, wrote in a letter to the housing secretary, Ben Carson.

Civil rights lawyers sued the department, and in October, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a nationwide injunction on the rule, finding it arbitrary and capricious.

“These significant alterations, which run the risk of effectively neutering disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act, appear inadequately justified,” Judge Mark Mastroianni wrote.

Among the first cases in which the Supreme Court tackled disparate impact was an education dispute, Lau v. Nichols, in which non-English-speaking Chinese students sued the San Francisco Unified School District for not offering bilingual education or remedial English, arguing that they were not afforded the same educational benefits as their English-speaking peers.

In 1974, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, citing a provision of Title VI that “discrimination is barred which has that effect even though no purposeful design is present.”

The case cemented the concept of disparate impact as a bedrock of educational civil rights enforcement and is also credited for robust programming for English-language learners now. The Justice Department’s move could jeopardize that, advocates warned.

“Deleting this regulation not only denies the government an important enforcement tool for detecting and addressing racial discrimination, but it will draw into question long-standing requirements that organizations that take federal funds from the department provide meaningful access to their programs to people who do not speak or read English,” said Seth Galanter, the senior director of the National Center for Youth Law.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has embarked on an eleventh-hour bid to undo some civil rights protections for minority groups, women, people with disabilities and LGBT people, according to a draft document, in a change that would mark one of the most significant shifts in civil rights enforcement in generations.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has embarked on an eleventh-hour bid to undo some civil rights protections for minority groups, women, people with disabilities and LGBT people, according to a draft document, in a change that would mark one of the most significant shifts in civil rights enforcement in generations. The Justice Department has submitted for White House approval a change to how it enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. The regulation covers housing programs, employers, schools, hospitals, and other organizations and programs. Under the change, the department would continue to narrowly enforce the law’s protections in cases where it could prove intentional discrimination, but no longer in instances where a policy or practice at issue had a “disparate impact” on minority or other groups. Civil rights groups say that the disparate impact rule is one of their most important tools for showing discrimination because it takes into account patterns of behavior that can seem neutral and compare outcomes for different groups to reveal inequities. Such cases make up most discrimination litigation, as businesses and organizations rarely disclose that they are purposefully engaging in the practice. But the Justice Department argued that its current approach to enforcing civil rights protections addressed “a vastly broader scope of conduct” than the statute itself prohibits, according to a copy of its draft proposal to amend the regulations obtained by The New York Times. The most substantial amendments to the rule would eliminate references to policies and practices having “the effect of” subjecting individuals to discrimination. The move is the latest in the Trump administration’s efforts to pare back civil rights protections for minority and other groups. It has curtailed other regulations, reversed affirmative action policies and cut government diversity training. The Justice Department effort also dovetails with a decadeslong project in the conservative legal movement to push back on civil rights protections seen as going beyond the law. The Justice Department quietly submitted the change to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Dec. 21, making it one of former Attorney General William Barr’s final acts. It did not make the language available for public review or comment, as is typically required in the federal rule-making process, citing an exception for matters related to agency loans, grants and contracts because the rule covers organizations that receive federal funding. Should the revised language be put in place, as the White House is expected to do, progressive legal groups are likely to challenge it, setting up a potential review by a Supreme Court with a conservative majority seen as hostile to civil rights protections. The incoming Biden administration could not immediately reverse the move, but a new attorney general could put its implementation on hold. A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The change would be the Justice Department’s first substantial amendment to how it defines discriminatory behavior in Title VI since 1973, according to the draft document. That proposed change would have broad effect across the federal government because the Justice Department is responsible for defining how the law prohibits discrimination and the attorney general must approve other agencies’ related regulations. The draft rule noted a signature line for Barr. “The regulation and explanation are exceedingly sparse, and it shows the dangers of rule-making without following the legally required process, including opportunities for public comment,” said Lauren Sampson, a staff attorney at Lawyers for Civil Rights. She added that the department’s proposal incorrectly says that the Supreme Court has raised questions about disparate impact as not legally sound, when it has upheld as recently as 2015 disparate impact as a vital tool in the work of protecting civil rights. A widely cited example of disparate impact has been the Jim Crow-era literacy tests that some states created as a condition to vote. The tests did not ask about race and so seemed neutral on their face. But they disproportionately prevented Black people from voting because they had long been forced out of schools and could not read. The tests are generally thought of as discriminatory because of that disparate impact on Black people. More recently, the protections against disparate impact were crucial to Education Department investigations into disproportionate discipline rates among Black and Latino students in schools. It allowed the department’s Office for Civil Rights to “look at policies and take into account harmful outcomes,” said Shiwali Patel, senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Center, who worked in the office during the Obama and Trump administrations. In several cases, the office found that schools were disciplining students differently by race. “Disparate impact analysis is important to create accountability at schools around discriminatory discipline policies, particularly since it’s difficult to prove racially motivated intent behind the policies,” Patel said. The Trump administration has long sought to eliminate protections for groups at risk of suffering such impacts, arguing that the Civil Rights Act as passed by Congress only safeguards against intentional acts of discrimination. The administration had embraced the legal objections of conservative allies, including the widely influential Heritage Foundation, and had put the regulation on a list of anti-discrimination laws championed by the Obama administration whose regulations it planned to revise had President Donald Trump won a second term. “Federal agencies are honeycombed with policies that adopt the disparate-impact approach, and the Trump administration needs to root them out,” Roger Clegg, the former president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank, wrote in The National Review in 2018. The Trump administration has already signaled its objection to the concept and taken steps to undermine it. In 2017, the administration closed a complaint from civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, alleging that the cancellation of a large transportation project in Maryland called the Red Line by Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, violated the Civil Rights Act because it disproportionately hurt the city’s Black residents. The Transportation Department shelved the complaint, which was opened on the last day of the Obama administration, without a finding or an explanation. The most forceful denouncement of the regulation came in 2018, when the Trump administration essentially blamed an Obama-era guidance document that addressed the disproportionate discipline rates among children of color in the United States for the mass shooting carried out by a troubled white student in Parkland, Florida. Trump administration officials sought extensively to link the document to the disparate impact doctrine. In the days before the Education and Justice departments rescinded the document in December 2018, a federal school safety commission headed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos issued a report recommending the guidance be withdrawn because it “relies on a disparate impact legal theory, but that theory lacks foundation in applicable law.” It called the document’s reading of the law “dubious, at best.” Last fall, the Department of Housing and Urban Development completed a rule that would have weakened anti-discrimination policies regulating the mortgage industry. The move drew a highly unusual request from the country’s four biggest banks — which would benefit from the proposed changes — that the department avoid rewriting the requirements. The federal government “should acknowledge that Americans’ attention to racial discrimination is more pronounced and expansive,” Michael DeVito, Wells Fargo’s executive vice president for home lending, wrote in a letter to the housing secretary, Ben Carson. Civil rights lawyers sued the department, and in October, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a nationwide injunction on the rule, finding it arbitrary and capricious. “These significant alterations, which run the risk of effectively neutering disparate impact liability under the Fair Housing Act, appear inadequately justified,” Judge Mark Mastroianni wrote. Among the first cases in which the Supreme Court tackled disparate impact was an education dispute, Lau v. Nichols, in which non-English-speaking Chinese students sued the San Francisco Unified School District for not offering bilingual education or remedial English, arguing that they were not afforded the same educational benefits as their English-speaking peers. In 1974, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, citing a provision of Title VI that “discrimination is barred which has that effect even though no purposeful design is present.” The case cemented the concept of disparate impact as a bedrock of educational civil rights enforcement and is also credited for robust programming for English-language learners now. The Justice Department’s move could jeopardize that, advocates warned. “Deleting this regulation not only denies the government an important enforcement tool for detecting and addressing racial discrimination, but it will draw into question long-standing requirements that organizations that take federal funds from the department provide meaningful access to their programs to people who do not speak or read English,” said Seth Galanter, the senior director of the National Center for Youth Law.

Justice dept seeks to pare back civil rights protections for minorities

Since President Donald Trump took office, the Justice Department has been under sustained attack as he questioned whether the lawyers and investigators who serve the country were loyalists who supported his personal agenda or traitors who should be rooted out and fired.

But under President-elect Joe Biden, the department’s former and current employees hope that his pick for attorney general will shield the agency from partisan battles and political concerns.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australian-mp-urges-donald-trump-to-pardon-julian-assange-before-leaving-white-house-349532">Australian MP urges Donald Trump to pardon Julian Assange before leaving White House</a>

More than 40 current and former department employees shared with The New York Times who they thought should run the Justice Department. They all wanted someone who would stand up for the employees and protect them from undue political influence, something that they say Trump’s attorneys general have largely been unable or unwilling to do.

They said that restoring the department’s independence from the White House, repairing morale and engaging both racial justice advocates and law enforcement officials on matters of race and criminal justice were the biggest issues facing the incoming leader.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/tensions-rise-in-washington-as-pro-trump-protesters-continue-to-decry-his-loss-349375">Tensions rise in Washington as pro-Trump protesters continue to decry his loss</a>

More than a dozen people said that they hoped Biden would nominate Sally Q. Yates, the former deputy attorney general in the Obama administration who was fired by Trump for refusing to defend his executive order banning entry to the United States for those from Muslim-majority countries.

Because she had so recently served as a top official in the department, the current and former department employees said they believed Yates would be ready from the get-go to tackle the big national security threats facing the country. As a strong civil rights advocate under President Barack Obama, she would be able to revitalize racial justice work that had languished during the Trump administration, they said.

Have a look|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/donald-trumps-supporters-take-to-streets-for-another-million-maga-march-349361">Donald Trump's supporters take to streets for another 'Million MAGA March'</a>

They bristled at widespread reports that Biden would disqualify her because he feared the prospect of a difficult confirmation hearing. Focusing on a two-day grilling before Congress, they said, would give short shrift to the seriousness of the work to be done.

Two people made cases for Doug Jones, the departing Alabama senator who, as a U.S. attorney under the Clinton administration, prosecuted members of the Ku Klux Klan who had bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963, killing four Black girls. Jones shares the quality that seems, more than any other, essential to securing a nomination from Biden — he is a close friend of the incoming president.

One person said that he believed Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whose Supreme Court nomination Republicans blocked in 2016, would be ideal, citing his reputation for fairness.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-joe-bidens-digital-team-tamed-the-maga-internet-349561">How Joe Biden’s digital team tamed the MAGA internet</a>

Biden’s choice of attorney general has been complicated by the fact that his son, Hunter Biden, is under federal investigation for possible tax crimes, shifting some of the calculus over the pick. Among the questions the selection now raises is whether it is an asset or a liability for the attorney general to be known as a close friend when that person will need to handle such a sensitive matter.

The choice gained some urgency Saturday after Trump again attacked Attorney General William Barr, this time for not publicly disclosing the inquiry. Doing so, he contended, could have helped sway the election in his favor, and the public excoriation set off a fresh wave of speculation that he would fire Barr and replace him with a loyalist who department employees feared could inflict untold damage on the institution.

“Why didn’t Bill Barr reveal the truth to the public, before the Election, about Hunter Biden,” Trump said on Twitter, referring to the federal inquiry. Justice Department policies prohibit public discussion about cases that could influence the outcome of the election.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/twitter-says-it-inadvertently-limited-engagements-on-trumps-flagged-tweets-349437">Twitter says it inadvertently limited engagements on Trump's flagged tweets</a>

Some of the people interviewed for this article said that the incoming attorney general should have deep national security experience and expertise in both domestic terrorism issues and challenges from foreign adversaries like China and Iran.

While Democratic administrations often prioritize the work of the civil rights division, the protests prompted by the death of George Floyd this spring have made such work an urgent priority, regardless of which party is in office, most interviewees said. To that end, they hoped for an attorney general who had the strong support of civil rights groups. But many acknowledged that for that to be consequential, on issues including complicated ones like policing, that person should be able to work with groups like the Fraternal Order of Police.

People were deeply divided over how the department should handle the prospect of investigating Trump or his inner circle. Some argued that Biden himself had no appetite for investigating and prosecuting the past and that the attorney general should take a similar approach. Others, mostly prosecutors, said the department must pursue criminal cases without fear or favor.

But those interviewed agreed on one thing: The merits of a case should determine whether the department chose to seek an indictment, and only someone who was seen as nonpartisan could credibly make and explain that sort of sensitive determination.

Nearly everyone said that the incoming attorney general would need to reestablish the idea that prosecutions would be free of political pressure from the president.

“Great damage has been done to the reputation and credibility of the department by the way it has been used for political purposes,” said Jonathan M. Smith, a former prosecutor in the civil rights division who now serves as executive director of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

He said that Barr had contributed greatly to that process by intervening in high-profile cases involving the president’s allies, such as having the department withdraw its prosecution of the president’s first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, and presenting the special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election as less damning to the president than it really was. But he said the problem of politicization had seeped throughout the agency, preventing career prosecutors from effectively investigating police misconduct.

Some current and former employees argued that the leadership’s decision to largely cut career people out of the decision-making process had contributed to politicization. Others argued that it was not entirely unusual and had been done because of the great amount of information that had found its way into the hands of reporters in the Trump era. Regardless, everyone agreed that it had hurt morale.

The incoming attorney general should solicit opinions from career officials before deciding on significant matters, one former longtime employee of the department said. Moreover, that leader, the former employee said, should trust deputies to bring issues of importance to top leaders when necessary.

An attorney general who adopted “a more inclusive, trust-driven and less hierarchical approach to management” could help repair the department’s culture, said Julie Saltman, a former lawyer in the civil division. “I’d like to see a genuinely good manager.”

Many employees said that they wanted an attorney general who would support their desire for accountability in the wake of the Trump era, even if no one from the current administration was prosecuted.

In a survey of more than 600 Justice Department alumni conducted by the legal group Protect Democracy, 77% said that the attorney general should work to identify all the ways that the departing administration had eroded the department’s norms and policies and build new procedures to restore its integrity. Only 5% said that a change in administration alone would rebuild credibility and restore morale.

“For the government to rebuild norms around Justice Department independence, there needs to be an accounting of what happened and who as involved,” said Rachel Homer, a former lawyer in the civil division.

Since President Donald Trump took office, the Justice Department has been under sustained attack as he questioned whether the lawyers and investigators who serve the country were loyalists who supported his personal agenda or traitors who should be rooted out and fired.

Since President Donald Trump took office, the Justice Department has been under sustained attack as he questioned whether the lawyers and investigators who serve the country were loyalists who supported his personal agenda or traitors who should be rooted out and fired. But under President-elect Joe Biden, the department’s former and current employees hope that his pick for attorney general will shield the agency from partisan battles and political concerns. Also read| Australian MP urges Donald Trump to pardon Julian Assange before leaving White House More than 40 current and former department employees shared with The New York Times who they thought should run the Justice Department. They all wanted someone who would stand up for the employees and protect them from undue political influence, something that they say Trump’s attorneys general have largely been unable or unwilling to do. They said that restoring the department’s independence from the White House, repairing morale and engaging both racial justice advocates and law enforcement officials on matters of race and criminal justice were the biggest issues facing the incoming leader. Also read| Tensions rise in Washington as pro-Trump protesters continue to decry his loss More than a dozen people said that they hoped Biden would nominate Sally Q. Yates, the former deputy attorney general in the Obama administration who was fired by Trump for refusing to defend his executive order banning entry to the United States for those from Muslim-majority countries. Because she had so recently served as a top official in the department, the current and former department employees said they believed Yates would be ready from the get-go to tackle the big national security threats facing the country. As a strong civil rights advocate under President Barack Obama, she would be able to revitalize racial justice work that had languished during the Trump administration, they said. Have a look| Donald Trump's supporters take to streets for another 'Million MAGA March' They bristled at widespread reports that Biden would disqualify her because he feared the prospect of a difficult confirmation hearing. Focusing on a two-day grilling before Congress, they said, would give short shrift to the seriousness of the work to be done. Two people made cases for Doug Jones, the departing Alabama senator who, as a U.S. attorney under the Clinton administration, prosecuted members of the Ku Klux Klan who had bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963, killing four Black girls. Jones shares the quality that seems, more than any other, essential to securing a nomination from Biden — he is a close friend of the incoming president. One person said that he believed Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whose Supreme Court nomination Republicans blocked in 2016, would be ideal, citing his reputation for fairness. Also read| How Joe Biden’s digital team tamed the MAGA internet Biden’s choice of attorney general has been complicated by the fact that his son, Hunter Biden, is under federal investigation for possible tax crimes, shifting some of the calculus over the pick. Among the questions the selection now raises is whether it is an asset or a liability for the attorney general to be known as a close friend when that person will need to handle such a sensitive matter. The choice gained some urgency Saturday after Trump again attacked Attorney General William Barr, this time for not publicly disclosing the inquiry. Doing so, he contended, could have helped sway the election in his favor, and the public excoriation set off a fresh wave of speculation that he would fire Barr and replace him with a loyalist who department employees feared could inflict untold damage on the institution. “Why didn’t Bill Barr reveal the truth to the public, before the Election, about Hunter Biden,” Trump said on Twitter, referring to the federal inquiry. Justice Department policies prohibit public discussion about cases that could influence the outcome of the election. Also read| Twitter says it inadvertently limited engagements on Trump's flagged tweets Some of the people interviewed for this article said that the incoming attorney general should have deep national security experience and expertise in both domestic terrorism issues and challenges from foreign adversaries like China and Iran. While Democratic administrations often prioritize the work of the civil rights division, the protests prompted by the death of George Floyd this spring have made such work an urgent priority, regardless of which party is in office, most interviewees said. To that end, they hoped for an attorney general who had the strong support of civil rights groups. But many acknowledged that for that to be consequential, on issues including complicated ones like policing, that person should be able to work with groups like the Fraternal Order of Police. People were deeply divided over how the department should handle the prospect of investigating Trump or his inner circle. Some argued that Biden himself had no appetite for investigating and prosecuting the past and that the attorney general should take a similar approach. Others, mostly prosecutors, said the department must pursue criminal cases without fear or favor. But those interviewed agreed on one thing: The merits of a case should determine whether the department chose to seek an indictment, and only someone who was seen as nonpartisan could credibly make and explain that sort of sensitive determination. Nearly everyone said that the incoming attorney general would need to reestablish the idea that prosecutions would be free of political pressure from the president. “Great damage has been done to the reputation and credibility of the department by the way it has been used for political purposes,” said Jonathan M. Smith, a former prosecutor in the civil rights division who now serves as executive director of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. He said that Barr had contributed greatly to that process by intervening in high-profile cases involving the president’s allies, such as having the department withdraw its prosecution of the president’s first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, and presenting the special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election as less damning to the president than it really was. But he said the problem of politicization had seeped throughout the agency, preventing career prosecutors from effectively investigating police misconduct. Some current and former employees argued that the leadership’s decision to largely cut career people out of the decision-making process had contributed to politicization. Others argued that it was not entirely unusual and had been done because of the great amount of information that had found its way into the hands of reporters in the Trump era. Regardless, everyone agreed that it had hurt morale. The incoming attorney general should solicit opinions from career officials before deciding on significant matters, one former longtime employee of the department said. Moreover, that leader, the former employee said, should trust deputies to bring issues of importance to top leaders when necessary. An attorney general who adopted “a more inclusive, trust-driven and less hierarchical approach to management” could help repair the department’s culture, said Julie Saltman, a former lawyer in the civil division. “I’d like to see a genuinely good manager.” Many employees said that they wanted an attorney general who would support their desire for accountability in the wake of the Trump era, even if no one from the current administration was prosecuted. In a survey of more than 600 Justice Department alumni conducted by the legal group Protect Democracy, 77% said that the attorney general should work to identify all the ways that the departing administration had eroded the department’s norms and policies and build new procedures to restore its integrity. Only 5% said that a change in administration alone would rebuild credibility and restore morale. “For the government to rebuild norms around Justice Department independence, there needs to be an accounting of what happened and who as involved,” said Rachel Homer, a former lawyer in the civil division.

Under Biden, justice dept. lawyers seek a shield from partisan battles

A former Trump fundraiser and a prominent lawyer have been scrutinised by the US Justice Department for their respective&nbsp;roles in what is being described as a possible bribery scheme to win a presidential pardon for a convicted felon.

The New York Times first reported Lowell and Broidy's roles in the case on Thursday evening.

Lawyer Abbe Lowell's attorney and friend Reid Weingarten said his client was never a target or subject in the Justice Department's inquiry, while former fundraiser Elliot Broidy's attorney William Burck said his client was "not under investigation and has not been accused by anyone of any wrongdoing whatsoever."

A federal judge had earlier&nbsp;released a heavily redacted document which revealed that the Justice Department had obtained possible evidence of a bribery scheme in which someone “would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence.”

The Justice Department had to ask the judge's permission to view certain emails between a lawyer and clients. The judge granted the request in August. At the time, US President Donald Trump described the investigation as "Fake News!" on Twitter.

In October, Broidy pleaded guilty in a separate case to illegally lobbying Trump to drop an investigation into a Malaysian embezzlement scandal.

Nothing in those court documents in Broidy's case made reference to conduct concerning the pardon bribery probe. Broidy's attorney Burck said his client's only role in the matter was putting Diller in contact with Lowell.

"Abbe's lawyering was utterly normal," Weingarten told Reuters in an interview on Thursday. "Not exciting, not interesting and not successful. But by the book. There was no bribe, there was no promise of a bribe, and there was no clemency. There was not relief. The guy went to jail."

The filing indicates that the lobbyists and lawyers contacted White House officials requesting a presidential pardon or reprieve, citing the "past substantial campaign contributions" and "anticipated future substantial political contributions" from a donor.

It suggests that the donor is making the offer on behalf of the person seeking clemency.

The document does not indicate when the actions involved took place, and, in the sections not redacted, there is no reference to current President Donald Trump or to his campaign.

There is also public discussion of Trump issuing a pardon for himself, for any crimes he might be charged with related to his time in office -- though the legality of that has never been tested.

(with inputs from agencies)

A former Trump fundraiser and a prominent lawyer have been scrutinised by the US Justice Department for their respective roles in what is being described as a possible bribery scheme to win a presidential pardon for a convicted felon.

A former Trump fundraiser and a prominent lawyer have been scrutinised by the US Justice Department for their respective roles in what is being described as a possible bribery scheme to win a presidential pardon for a convicted felon. The New York Times first reported Lowell and Broidy's roles in the case on Thursday evening. Lawyer Abbe Lowell's attorney and friend Reid Weingarten said his client was never a target or subject in the Justice Department's inquiry, while former fundraiser Elliot Broidy's attorney William Burck said his client was "not under investigation and has not been accused by anyone of any wrongdoing whatsoever." A federal judge had earlier released a heavily redacted document which revealed that the Justice Department had obtained possible evidence of a bribery scheme in which someone “would offer a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence.” The Justice Department had to ask the judge's permission to view certain emails between a lawyer and clients. The judge granted the request in August. At the time, US President Donald Trump described the investigation as "Fake News!" on Twitter. In October, Broidy pleaded guilty in a separate case to illegally lobbying Trump to drop an investigation into a Malaysian embezzlement scandal. Nothing in those court documents in Broidy's case made reference to conduct concerning the pardon bribery probe. Broidy's attorney Burck said his client's only role in the matter was putting Diller in contact with Lowell. "Abbe's lawyering was utterly normal," Weingarten told Reuters in an interview on Thursday. "Not exciting, not interesting and not successful. But by the book. There was no bribe, there was no promise of a bribe, and there was no clemency. There was not relief. The guy went to jail." The filing indicates that the lobbyists and lawyers contacted White House officials requesting a presidential pardon or reprieve, citing the "past substantial campaign contributions" and "anticipated future substantial political contributions" from a donor. It suggests that the donor is making the offer on behalf of the person seeking clemency. The document does not indicate when the actions involved took place, and, in the sections not redacted, there is no reference to current President Donald Trump or to his campaign. There is also public discussion of Trump issuing a pardon for himself, for any crimes he might be charged with related to his time in office -- though the legality of that has never been tested. (with inputs from agencies)

Roles of Kushner's lawyer, Trump fundraiser scrutinised in pardon bribery scheme probe

Alphabet Inc's&nbsp;Google&nbsp;said the US&nbsp;Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against the company was "deeply flawed" and that users would find it more difficult to access superior search tools and affordable smartphones if the government wins its case.

"American antitrust law is designed to promote innovation and help consumers, not tilt the playing field in favor of particular competitors or make it harder for people to get the services they want,"&nbsp;Google&nbsp;senior vice president Kent Walker said in a blog post on Tuesday.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/us-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google-336688" hreflang="en">US files antitrust lawsuit against Google</a>

The lawsuit by the Justice Department and 11 states alleges&nbsp;Google&nbsp;used its market power to fend off rivals, including through distribution agreements that gave its search engine prominent placement on phones and internet browsers.

Google&nbsp;says those agreements, in which it shares revenue from search ads with distributors such as iPhone maker Apple Inc, help subsidize phones.

Companies could carry other search engines, but users have repeatedly shown a preference for&nbsp;Google's search tools, Walker said. Consumers who prefer an alternative are able to switch the default search tool on iPhones and other devices, he said. But forcing device and browser makers to set "lower-quality search alternatives" as the default was not beneficial to consumers, Walker added.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/chinese-hackers-targeting-biden-and-trump-are-faking-mcafee-software-google-336251" hreflang="en">Chinese hackers targeting Biden and Trump are faking McAfee software: Google</a>

He also described as incorrect the Justice Department's conclusion that topic-specific search tools such as travel services Kayak and Expedia or shopping giant Amazon.com Inc were not competitors to&nbsp;Google&nbsp;search.

Google&nbsp;contends the popularity of those narrow search tools lowers its market share than when counting only Microsoft Corp's Bing and other "general" search tools as competition.

Alphabet Inc's Google said the US Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against the company was "deeply flawed" and that users would find it more difficult to access superior search tools and affordable smartphones if the government wins its case.

Alphabet Inc's Google said the US Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against the company was "deeply flawed" and that users would find it more difficult to access superior search tools and affordable smartphones if the government wins its case. "American antitrust law is designed to promote innovation and help consumers, not tilt the playing field in favor of particular competitors or make it harder for people to get the services they want," Google senior vice president Kent Walker said in a blog post on Tuesday. Also read: US files antitrust lawsuit against Google The lawsuit by the Justice Department and 11 states alleges Google used its market power to fend off rivals, including through distribution agreements that gave its search engine prominent placement on phones and internet browsers. Google says those agreements, in which it shares revenue from search ads with distributors such as iPhone maker Apple Inc, help subsidize phones. Companies could carry other search engines, but users have repeatedly shown a preference for Google's search tools, Walker said. Consumers who prefer an alternative are able to switch the default search tool on iPhones and other devices, he said. But forcing device and browser makers to set "lower-quality search alternatives" as the default was not beneficial to consumers, Walker added. Also read: Chinese hackers targeting Biden and Trump are faking McAfee software: Google He also described as incorrect the Justice Department's conclusion that topic-specific search tools such as travel services Kayak and Expedia or shopping giant Amazon.com Inc were not competitors to Google search. Google contends the popularity of those narrow search tools lowers its market share than when counting only Microsoft Corp's Bing and other "general" search tools as competition.

Google calls US Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit 'deeply flawed'

China has warned USA that it may detain American citizens in China as a response to USA's prosecution of Chinese scholars that have links with Chinese army, Wall Street Journal reported.

The report said that Chinese officials have been conveying this to their US counterparts from summer this year. US Justice Department began arresting and prosecuting Chinese scholars conducting research in US institutions. They were accused of hiding their links with People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China.

Wall Street Journal said that China's message was that the United States should end prosecutions of Chinese scholars in U.S. courts, or Americans in China could find themselves in violation of Chinese law.

The Trump administration has increasingly accused China of suing cyber operations and espionage to steal U.S. technological, military and other know-how in a strategy to supplant the United States as the world's leading financial and military power. Beijing denies the allegations.

In July, the Justice Department said the FBI had arrested three Chinese nationals for allegedly concealing memberships in the Peoples Liberation Army when applying for visas to conduct research at U.S. academic institutions.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-forces-prepare-for-possible-military-invasion-of-taiwan-deploy-hypersonic-missile-336157">China forces prepare for possible military invasion of Taiwan, deploy hypersonic missile</a>

Last month, the United States said it had revoked visas for more than 1,000 Chinese nationals under a presidential measure denying entry to students and researchers deemed security risks, a move China called a violation of human rights.

At the time, a State Department spokeswoman said the United States continued to welcome "legitimate students and scholars from China who do not further the Chinese Communist Party's goals of military dominance."

(With Reuters inputs)

China has warned USA that it may detain American citizens in China as a response to USA's prosecution of Chinese scholars that have links with Chinese army, Wall Street Journal reported.

China has warned USA that it may detain American citizens in China as a response to USA's prosecution of Chinese scholars that have links with Chinese army, Wall Street Journal reported. The report said that Chinese officials have been conveying this to their US counterparts from summer this year. US Justice Department began arresting and prosecuting Chinese scholars conducting research in US institutions. They were accused of hiding their links with People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China. Wall Street Journal said that China's message was that the United States should end prosecutions of Chinese scholars in U.S. courts, or Americans in China could find themselves in violation of Chinese law. The Trump administration has increasingly accused China of suing cyber operations and espionage to steal U.S. technological, military and other know-how in a strategy to supplant the United States as the world's leading financial and military power. Beijing denies the allegations. In July, the Justice Department said the FBI had arrested three Chinese nationals for allegedly concealing memberships in the Peoples Liberation Army when applying for visas to conduct research at U.S. academic institutions. Also Read | China forces prepare for possible military invasion of Taiwan, deploy hypersonic missile Last month, the United States said it had revoked visas for more than 1,000 Chinese nationals under a presidential measure denying entry to students and researchers deemed security risks, a move China called a violation of human rights. At the time, a State Department spokeswoman said the United States continued to welcome "legitimate students and scholars from China who do not further the Chinese Communist Party's goals of military dominance." (With Reuters inputs)

China warns US it may detain Americans over prosecution of Chinese scholars

A 36-year veteran of the Justice Department this week accused Attorney General William Barr of abusing his power to sway the election for President Donald Trump and said he was quitting, making him the third sitting prosecutor to issue a rare public rebuke of the attorney general.

“Barr’s resentment toward rule-of-law prosecutors became increasingly difficult to ignore, as did his slavish obedience to Donald Trump’s will,” Phillip Halpern, a federal prosecutor in San Diego, said in a letter published Wednesday in The San Diego Union-Tribune. “This career bureaucrat seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy.”

Halpern said he chose to retire as well, calling Barr “a well-trained bureaucrat” without prosecutorial experience and alleging that he scorned honest apolitical prosecutors and selectively meddled in the criminal justice system to help Trump’s allies.

He said he would have quit earlier but stayed on because he worried that the department under Barr would have interfered in his prosecution of former Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who pleaded guilty in December to conspiracy to steal campaign funds.

The condemnations by Halpern and the two other prosecutors, one in Seattle and one in Boston, broke with a long-standing practice by Justice Department lawyers not to publicly discuss internal affairs.

“I have never seen sitting prosecutors go on the record with concerns about the attorney general,” said Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law who served as a federal prosecutor during Barr’s earlier tour as attorney general in the George Bush administration. “This is unprecedented.”

He said that during Barr’s first stint as attorney general, line prosecutors did not feel the sense of crisis that they feel now. “Trump is the difference,” Butler said. “Barr was attorney general, but he was still beholden to the president, and he didn’t put the pressure on the attorney general that Trump has.”

Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, did not respond to a request for comment on the letters or to a question about whether the two prosecutors still at the department who spoke out would face disciplinary action.

More than 110,000 people work at the Justice Department, and internal disagreement is common, as at any large organization; the disputes sometimes spill into view through news reports. The department and its prosecutors have come under tremendous scrutiny under Trump, as he has publicly criticized prosecutors for charging his allies and said that he wanted them to put his political enemies in jail.

Butler pointed to a recent book by Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on the Russia investigation, as an example of how the norm of the department’s rank and file remaining quiet had softened. Weissmann’s book gives an inside looking into some of the deliberations that took place during the investigation and criticized the special counsel, Robert Mueller, for being overly cautious.

Mueller publicly pushed back on some of Weissmann’s claims in a rare public statement.

“Even five years ago, that would have been shocking,” Butler said of the back-and-forth.

But he argued that the three prosecutors’ critiques of Barr were particularly unusual. “Most people in the past would have been afraid that they would be tainted or blackballed from future jobs for publicly criticizing the attorney general,” Butler said. “But I don’t think that these letter writers will suffer consequences outside of the department.”

Halpern, who worked under six presidents of both parties, said that he observed colleagues quitting and that highly qualified lawyers seemed unwilling to apply to be federal prosecutors because of how Barr helmed the department.

“I always believed the department’s past leaders were dedicated to the rule of law and the guiding principle that justice is blind,” Halpern said. “That is a bygone era, but it should not be forgotten.” 
&nbsp;

A 36-year veteran of the Justice Department this week accused Attorney General William Barr of abusing his power to sway the election for President Donald Trump and said he was quitting, making him the third sitting prosecutor to issue a rare public rebuke of the attorney general.

A 36-year veteran of the Justice Department this week accused Attorney General William Barr of abusing his power to sway the election for President Donald Trump and said he was quitting, making him the third sitting prosecutor to issue a rare public rebuke of the attorney general. “Barr’s resentment toward rule-of-law prosecutors became increasingly difficult to ignore, as did his slavish obedience to Donald Trump’s will,” Phillip Halpern, a federal prosecutor in San Diego, said in a letter published Wednesday in The San Diego Union-Tribune. “This career bureaucrat seems determined to turn our democracy into an autocracy.” Halpern said he chose to retire as well, calling Barr “a well-trained bureaucrat” without prosecutorial experience and alleging that he scorned honest apolitical prosecutors and selectively meddled in the criminal justice system to help Trump’s allies. He said he would have quit earlier but stayed on because he worried that the department under Barr would have interfered in his prosecution of former Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who pleaded guilty in December to conspiracy to steal campaign funds. The condemnations by Halpern and the two other prosecutors, one in Seattle and one in Boston, broke with a long-standing practice by Justice Department lawyers not to publicly discuss internal affairs. “I have never seen sitting prosecutors go on the record with concerns about the attorney general,” said Paul Butler, a professor at Georgetown Law who served as a federal prosecutor during Barr’s earlier tour as attorney general in the George Bush administration. “This is unprecedented.” He said that during Barr’s first stint as attorney general, line prosecutors did not feel the sense of crisis that they feel now. “Trump is the difference,” Butler said. “Barr was attorney general, but he was still beholden to the president, and he didn’t put the pressure on the attorney general that Trump has.” Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, did not respond to a request for comment on the letters or to a question about whether the two prosecutors still at the department who spoke out would face disciplinary action. More than 110,000 people work at the Justice Department, and internal disagreement is common, as at any large organization; the disputes sometimes spill into view through news reports. The department and its prosecutors have come under tremendous scrutiny under Trump, as he has publicly criticized prosecutors for charging his allies and said that he wanted them to put his political enemies in jail. Butler pointed to a recent book by Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on the Russia investigation, as an example of how the norm of the department’s rank and file remaining quiet had softened. Weissmann’s book gives an inside looking into some of the deliberations that took place during the investigation and criticized the special counsel, Robert Mueller, for being overly cautious. Mueller publicly pushed back on some of Weissmann’s claims in a rare public statement. “Even five years ago, that would have been shocking,” Butler said of the back-and-forth. But he argued that the three prosecutors’ critiques of Barr were particularly unusual. “Most people in the past would have been afraid that they would be tainted or blackballed from future jobs for publicly criticizing the attorney general,” Butler said. “But I don’t think that these letter writers will suffer consequences outside of the department.” Halpern, who worked under six presidents of both parties, said that he observed colleagues quitting and that highly qualified lawyers seemed unwilling to apply to be federal prosecutors because of how Barr helmed the department. “I always believed the department’s past leaders were dedicated to the rule of law and the guiding principle that justice is blind,” Halpern said. “That is a bygone era, but it should not be forgotten.”

Third Justice Department prosecutor publicly denounces William Barr

The US government on Wednesday announced charges over global hacking against five Chinese nationals and two Malaysians.

"First and foremost is that we have unsealed three indictments that collectively charge five Chinese nationals with computer hacking and charge two Malaysian nationals for helping some of those hackers target victims and sell the fruits of their hacking," US deputy attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, said.

The five Chinese hackers were charged with hacking over a hundred companies in the United States and abroad including foreign governments and pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.

"First, as the core of Apt 41's computer hacking, the Chinese defendants targeted well over 100 victims worldwide in a variety of industries and sectors that are sadly part of the standard target list for Chinese hackers," Rosen said.

The US Justice Department said that two Malaysian businessmen Ling Yang Ching and Wong Ong Hua were charged with conspiring with two of the Chinese hackers to profit from computer hacking in various countries including the United States, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and France.

"Some of these criminal actors believed their association with the PRC provided them free license to hack and steal across the globe," federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin said in a statement.

The whereabouts of the five Chinese remain unknown, however, the two Malaysians were arrested in Malaysia on Monday and the United States is seeking their extradition.

The US government on Wednesday announced charges over global hacking against five Chinese nationals and two Malaysians. "First and foremost is that we have unsealed three indictments that collectively charge five Chinese nationals with computer hacking and charge two Malaysian nationals for helping some of those hackers target victims and sell the fruits of their hacking," US deputy attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, said.

The US government on Wednesday announced charges over global hacking against five Chinese nationals and two Malaysians. "First and foremost is that we have unsealed three indictments that collectively charge five Chinese nationals with computer hacking and charge two Malaysian nationals for helping some of those hackers target victims and sell the fruits of their hacking," US deputy attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, said. The five Chinese hackers were charged with hacking over a hundred companies in the United States and abroad including foreign governments and pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. "First, as the core of Apt 41's computer hacking, the Chinese defendants targeted well over 100 victims worldwide in a variety of industries and sectors that are sadly part of the standard target list for Chinese hackers," Rosen said. The US Justice Department said that two Malaysian businessmen Ling Yang Ching and Wong Ong Hua were charged with conspiring with two of the Chinese hackers to profit from computer hacking in various countries including the United States, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and France. "Some of these criminal actors believed their association with the PRC provided them free license to hack and steal across the globe," federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin said in a statement. The whereabouts of the five Chinese remain unknown, however, the two Malaysians were arrested in Malaysia on Monday and the United States is seeking their extradition.

US announces charges against Chinese, Malaysians involved in worldwide hacking racket

The US Justice Department on Tuesday asked to take over the defence of President Donald Trump in&nbsp;a defamation lawsuit that was filed against him by E. Jean Carroll. She has accused Trump of sexual assault.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/signs-of-stress-appear-in-us-president-trumps-relationship-with-the-military-326094" hreflang="en">Signs of stress appear in US President Trump's relationship with the military</a>

The move by the Justice Department of defending Trump at taxpayer's expense comes amidst the ongoing criticism that it has acted in Donald Trump's personal interests. According to the Justice Department, it must take over because Trump's comments on the defamation lawsuit came while he was in office.&nbsp;

"President Trump was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States at the time of the incidents out of which the Plaintiff's defamation claim arose. Indeed, when providing the challenged statements, the President was speaking to or responding to inquiries from the press, much as the elected officials in the cases cited above were speaking to the press or making other public statements at the time of their challenged actions," the Justice Department's court filing stated.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-election-2020-trumps-billion-dollar-campaign-has-lost-cash-advantage-326021" hreflang="en">US election 2020: Trump's billion-dollar campaign has lost 'cash advantage'</a>

"The Westfall Act accordingly requires the substitution of the United States as defendant in this action," the department added.

E. Jean Carroll filed the lawsuit in November last year, where she alleged that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at luxury Manhattan department store Bergdorf Goodman in the 1990s. Trump denied these allegations, he called it "totally false" and said that he "never met this person in my life."

"Even in today's world, that argument is shocking," said Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's Lawyer on the Justice Department's logic.&nbsp;

After the move by the Justice Department, Carroll issued a statement on Tuesday, which said: "Today’s actions demonstrate that Trump will do everything possible, including using the full powers of the federal government, to block discovery from going forward in my case before the upcoming election to try to prevent a jury from ever deciding which one of us is lying."

The US Justice Department on Tuesday asked to take over the defence of President Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit that was filed against him by E. Jean Carroll.

The US Justice Department on Tuesday asked to take over the defence of President Donald Trump in a defamation lawsuit that was filed against him by E. Jean Carroll. She has accused Trump of sexual assault. Also read: Signs of stress appear in US President Trump's relationship with the military The move by the Justice Department of defending Trump at taxpayer's expense comes amidst the ongoing criticism that it has acted in Donald Trump's personal interests. According to the Justice Department, it must take over because Trump's comments on the defamation lawsuit came while he was in office. "President Trump was acting within the scope of his office as President of the United States at the time of the incidents out of which the Plaintiff's defamation claim arose. Indeed, when providing the challenged statements, the President was speaking to or responding to inquiries from the press, much as the elected officials in the cases cited above were speaking to the press or making other public statements at the time of their challenged actions," the Justice Department's court filing stated. Also read: US election 2020: Trump's billion-dollar campaign has lost 'cash advantage' "The Westfall Act accordingly requires the substitution of the United States as defendant in this action," the department added. E. Jean Carroll filed the lawsuit in November last year, where she alleged that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at luxury Manhattan department store Bergdorf Goodman in the 1990s. Trump denied these allegations, he called it "totally false" and said that he "never met this person in my life." "Even in today's world, that argument is shocking," said Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's Lawyer on the Justice Department's logic. After the move by the Justice Department, Carroll issued a statement on Tuesday, which said: "Today’s actions demonstrate that Trump will do everything possible, including using the full powers of the federal government, to block discovery from going forward in my case before the upcoming election to try to prevent a jury from ever deciding which one of us is lying."

US Justice Department seeks to defend Trump in E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit

A suspended engineering professor of the University of Arkansas called Simon&nbsp;Saw-Teong&nbsp;Ang has been&nbsp;indicted over China links and is facing&nbsp;44 counts of fraud said the US Department of Justice.

The indictment said&nbsp;Ang&nbsp;was secretly part of the Xi-backed Thousand Talents program, which Washington says China uses to collect research from abroad.

The FBI affidavit says authorities discovered Ang's alleged ties to Chinese interests after a university employee attempted to identify the owner of a hard drive that was placed in lost-and-found at a campus library.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fbi-arrests-nasa-researcher-for-not-disclosing-alleged-ties-with-china-298420">FBI arrests NASA researcher for not 'disclosing' alleged ties with China</a>

While reviewing the contents of the hard drive, which were later turned over to the FBI, the affidavit says, the employee discovered an email exchange between Ang and a visiting researcher from Xidian University in Xi'an, China.

In the September 2018 email discussion, Ang wrote that things were becoming difficult for him because of the current political climate, according to the affidavit.

According to the FBI, those associated with China's Thousand Talents program are individuals who work or study outside of China in high-priority research fields. While not traditional spies, investigators say they are nevertheless collecting research information sought by Chinese authorities.

Earlier this week,&nbsp;Li Xiaojiang, a former professor at Emory University in Atlanta, admitted tax fraud in a case focused on his hidden earnings from China, also as a participant in the Thousand Talents program.

Senator Marco Rubio, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said such cases combined with the coronavirus are forcing China to change its tactics.

"Beijing has shifted its recruitment efforts for the Thousand Talents Program online, and it has increased efforts to hack US medical research institutes for COVID-19 information," he said.

A suspended engineering professor of the University of Arkansas called Simon Saw-Teong Ang has been indicted over China links and is facing 44 counts of fraud said the US Department of Justice.

A suspended engineering professor of the University of Arkansas called Simon Saw-Teong Ang has been indicted over China links and is facing 44 counts of fraud said the US Department of Justice. The indictment said Ang was secretly part of the Xi-backed Thousand Talents program, which Washington says China uses to collect research from abroad. The FBI affidavit says authorities discovered Ang's alleged ties to Chinese interests after a university employee attempted to identify the owner of a hard drive that was placed in lost-and-found at a campus library. Also read: FBI arrests NASA researcher for not 'disclosing' alleged ties with China While reviewing the contents of the hard drive, which were later turned over to the FBI, the affidavit says, the employee discovered an email exchange between Ang and a visiting researcher from Xidian University in Xi'an, China. In the September 2018 email discussion, Ang wrote that things were becoming difficult for him because of the current political climate, according to the affidavit. According to the FBI, those associated with China's Thousand Talents program are individuals who work or study outside of China in high-priority research fields. While not traditional spies, investigators say they are nevertheless collecting research information sought by Chinese authorities. Earlier this week, Li Xiaojiang, a former professor at Emory University in Atlanta, admitted tax fraud in a case focused on his hidden earnings from China, also as a participant in the Thousand Talents program. Senator Marco Rubio, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said such cases combined with the coronavirus are forcing China to change its tactics. "Beijing has shifted its recruitment efforts for the Thousand Talents Program online, and it has increased efforts to hack US medical research institutes for COVID-19 information," he said.

US professor Simon Ang indicted over China links, faces 44 counts of fraud

The Federal Trade Commission and the US Justice Department are looking into allegations that popular app TikTok did not live up to a 2019 agreement that aimed at protecting children’s privacy. Watch report.

Tiktok Draws U.S. Scrutiny Over Privacy Privacy Groups Accuse Tiktok Over Handling Of Data.

FBI arrested a NASA researcher who allegedly failed to disclose his ties to Chinese entities.

According to the US Justice Department, this happened during the course of securing funding for a NASA research project.

Simon Saw-Teong Ang&nbsp;of Fayetteville, was arrested by FBI agents and charged with wire fraud.&nbsp;

The 63-year-old was&nbsp;an electrical engineering professor and researcher at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville (UA) since 1988.

The FBI affidavit says authorities discovered Ang's alleged ties to Chinese interests after a university employee attempted to identify the owner of a hard drive that was placed in lost-and-found at a campus library.

While reviewing the contents of the hard drive, which were later turned over to the FBI, the affidavit says, the employee discovered an email exchange between Ang and a visiting researcher from Xidian University in Xi'an, China.

In the September 2018 email discussion, Ang wrote that things were becoming difficult for him because of the current political climate, according to the affidavit.

According to the FBI, those associated with China's Thousand Talents program are individuals who work or study outside of China in high-priority research fields. While not traditional spies, investigators say they are nevertheless collecting research information sought by Chinese authorities.

Ang defrauded NASA and the university "by failing to disclose that he held other positions at a Chinese university and Chinese companies" in violation of conflict of interest policies, according to an FBI special agent's affidavit in support of the complaint.

As part of his research, authorities said Ang received several grants and contracts from federal agencies, including NASA.

However,&nbsp;"Ang's close ties to the Chinese government and employment with numerous Chinese companies while working for the university, would have made him ineligible to receive grants issued by United States government agencies, " as per the affidavit filed in US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

FBI arrested a NASA researcher who allegedly failed to disclose his ties to Chinese entities. According to the US Justice Department, this happened during the course of securing funding for a NASA research project.

FBI arrested a NASA researcher who allegedly failed to disclose his ties to Chinese entities. According to the US Justice Department, this happened during the course of securing funding for a NASA research project. Simon Saw-Teong Ang of Fayetteville, was arrested by FBI agents and charged with wire fraud. The 63-year-old was an electrical engineering professor and researcher at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville (UA) since 1988. The FBI affidavit says authorities discovered Ang's alleged ties to Chinese interests after a university employee attempted to identify the owner of a hard drive that was placed in lost-and-found at a campus library. While reviewing the contents of the hard drive, which were later turned over to the FBI, the affidavit says, the employee discovered an email exchange between Ang and a visiting researcher from Xidian University in Xi'an, China. In the September 2018 email discussion, Ang wrote that things were becoming difficult for him because of the current political climate, according to the affidavit. According to the FBI, those associated with China's Thousand Talents program are individuals who work or study outside of China in high-priority research fields. While not traditional spies, investigators say they are nevertheless collecting research information sought by Chinese authorities. Ang defrauded NASA and the university "by failing to disclose that he held other positions at a Chinese university and Chinese companies" in violation of conflict of interest policies, according to an FBI special agent's affidavit in support of the complaint. As part of his research, authorities said Ang received several grants and contracts from federal agencies, including NASA. However, "Ang's close ties to the Chinese government and employment with numerous Chinese companies while working for the university, would have made him ineligible to receive grants issued by United States government agencies, " as per the affidavit filed in US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

FBI arrests NASA researcher for not 'disclosing' alleged ties with China

US officials on Wednesday stepped up warnings about the potential security risks from the fast-growing, Chinese-owned TikTok as a lawmaker unveiled legislation to ban the social media app from government devices.

At a Senate hearing, officials from the FBI, the Justice Department and Homeland Security said the video-sharing app could become another tool exploited by Chinese intelligence services.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/tiktok-received-more-numbers-than-facebook-ever-did-sheryl-sandberg-283417">TikTok received more numbers than Facebook ever did, says&nbsp;Sheryl Sandberg</a>

Senator Josh Hawley, who convened the hearing, said he was introducing a bill to ban TikTok from all US government devices, calling it "a major security risk for the American people."

TikTok, which is especially popular with teens, is believed to have been the most downloaded app worldwide last year, but US officials have expressed concern over its connections with the government in Beijing.

"TikTok is one example of an application where the average citizen doesn't understand the implications of what's behind it," Clyde Wallace, an official in the FBI's cyber division, told the hearing.

"It's basically controlled by a state-sponsored actor."

While the various data points collected by TikTok may not seem sensitive, Wallace said the information may be aggregated and "used for many purposes."

In his written testimony, Wallace said Chinese-owned social media applications may collect personal data including biometrics, contact lists, location data and bank and credit card details.

"Any and all data can be transferred to other locations and associated entities to include the Chinese parent company," he said.

Bryan Ware, a cybersecurity official at the Department of Homeland Security, echoed those fears, saying that TikTok data could become part of a large database exploited by China.

"China has amazing programs in collection of data and developing artificial intelligence and analytics against that data for purposes that we don't fully know... and that should give us great concern," Ware said.

"There's certainly no place for applications like TikTok on government devices and government networks."

Adam Hickey, an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's security division, said the aggregation of data from TikTok "makes it easier for intelligence services to either recruit or hack into systems used by government employees."

Samm Sacks, a cybersecurity fellow at the New America Foundation specializing in China, said Chinese regulations may enable the government to "essentially require anything that they want of these companies" even if some privately push back at the requests.

TikTok has said its operations were not influenced by the Beijing authorities. 
&nbsp;

US officials on Wednesday stepped up warnings about the potential security risks from the fast-growing, Chinese-owned TikTok as a lawmaker unveiled legislation to ban the social media app from government devices.

US officials on Wednesday stepped up warnings about the potential security risks from the fast-growing, Chinese-owned TikTok as a lawmaker unveiled legislation to ban the social media app from government devices. At a Senate hearing, officials from the FBI, the Justice Department and Homeland Security said the video-sharing app could become another tool exploited by Chinese intelligence services. Also read: TikTok received more numbers than Facebook ever did, says Sheryl Sandberg Senator Josh Hawley, who convened the hearing, said he was introducing a bill to ban TikTok from all US government devices, calling it "a major security risk for the American people." TikTok, which is especially popular with teens, is believed to have been the most downloaded app worldwide last year, but US officials have expressed concern over its connections with the government in Beijing. "TikTok is one example of an application where the average citizen doesn't understand the implications of what's behind it," Clyde Wallace, an official in the FBI's cyber division, told the hearing. "It's basically controlled by a state-sponsored actor." While the various data points collected by TikTok may not seem sensitive, Wallace said the information may be aggregated and "used for many purposes." In his written testimony, Wallace said Chinese-owned social media applications may collect personal data including biometrics, contact lists, location data and bank and credit card details. "Any and all data can be transferred to other locations and associated entities to include the Chinese parent company," he said. Bryan Ware, a cybersecurity official at the Department of Homeland Security, echoed those fears, saying that TikTok data could become part of a large database exploited by China. "China has amazing programs in collection of data and developing artificial intelligence and analytics against that data for purposes that we don't fully know... and that should give us great concern," Ware said. "There's certainly no place for applications like TikTok on government devices and government networks." Adam Hickey, an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's security division, said the aggregation of data from TikTok "makes it easier for intelligence services to either recruit or hack into systems used by government employees." Samm Sacks, a cybersecurity fellow at the New America Foundation specializing in China, said Chinese regulations may enable the government to "essentially require anything that they want of these companies" even if some privately push back at the requests. TikTok has said its operations were not influenced by the Beijing authorities.

US lawmakers propose ban on TikTok citing Chinese government ties

US Justice Department said today that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/hsbc-announces-new-heads-of-investment-banking-division-267192">Switzerland's HSBC</a> had "conspired with US account holders to conceal assets abroad and evade taxes" and had agreed to pay $192.4 million in unpaid taxes, improper fees and fines.

"HSBC Switzerland conspired with US account holders to conceal assets abroad and evade taxes that every American must pay," Stuart Goldberg, acting chief of the department's tax division, said in a statement.&nbsp;

The bank essentially helped wealthy Americans evade taxes, the US Justice Department investigation revealed.

"Banks, asset managers and other financial firms enable such crimes -- and we will hold these institutions to account, right along with the taxpayers that use them to facilitate and disguise illegal activities," Goldberg added. 
&nbsp; 
"Some HSBC Switzerland bankers assisted clients in closing their accounts in a manner that continued to conceal their offshore assets," US prosecutors said in a statement.

According to the Justice Department, In 2002, HSBC had over 720 undeclared US client relationships with a total value of more than $800 million which reached $1.3 billion over the next five years.

The bank will now have to demonstrate "good conduct" under the settlement deal with the US government, however, the Justice Department said in a statement that it does not mean individuals will not be prosecuted separately.

After the US decision, Chief Executive Alex Classen said: "Today the Swiss subsidiary operates under new management, we have strengthened our compliance function, enhanced our control framework and put in place a comprehensive client tax transparency policy."

US Justice Department said today that Switzerland's HSBC had "conspired with US account holders to conceal assets abroad and evade taxes" and had agreed to pay $192.

US Justice Department said today that Switzerland's HSBC had "conspired with US account holders to conceal assets abroad and evade taxes" and had agreed to pay $192.4 million in unpaid taxes, improper fees and fines. "HSBC Switzerland conspired with US account holders to conceal assets abroad and evade taxes that every American must pay," Stuart Goldberg, acting chief of the department's tax division, said in a statement. The bank essentially helped wealthy Americans evade taxes, the US Justice Department investigation revealed. "Banks, asset managers and other financial firms enable such crimes -- and we will hold these institutions to account, right along with the taxpayers that use them to facilitate and disguise illegal activities," Goldberg added. "Some HSBC Switzerland bankers assisted clients in closing their accounts in a manner that continued to conceal their offshore assets," US prosecutors said in a statement. According to the Justice Department, In 2002, HSBC had over 720 undeclared US client relationships with a total value of more than $800 million which reached $1.3 billion over the next five years. The bank will now have to demonstrate "good conduct" under the settlement deal with the US government, however, the Justice Department said in a statement that it does not mean individuals will not be prosecuted separately. After the US decision, Chief Executive Alex Classen said: "Today the Swiss subsidiary operates under new management, we have strengthened our compliance function, enhanced our control framework and put in place a comprehensive client tax transparency policy."

US government fines HSBC $192.4 million in tax evasion case

A US Justice Department review into the origins of the probe into Russia's alleged interference in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/republicans-to-unveil-measure-knocking-trump-impeachment-effort-258014">2016 US presidential election</a> is now a criminal investigation, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday (October 24).

The person, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, declined to say whether a grand jury has been convened in the investigation.

The development was first reported by the New York Times.

US Attorney General William Barr launched a review earlier this year to investigate<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-compares-impeachment-to-lynching-faces-backlash-257586"> President Donald Trump</a>'s complaints that his campaign was improperly targeted by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies during the 2016 election.

Democrats and some former law enforcement officials say Barr is using the Justice Department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that could benefit the Republican president politically and undermine former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

As part of his inquiry, Barr has asked Australian and British justice officials for assistance and visited Italy twice, meeting intelligence agents in Rome in August and September to learn more about people mentioned in Mueller's report.

Mueller's investigation found that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump, and led to criminal convictions of several former campaign aides. But Mueller concluded that he did not have enough evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

Barr appointed Connecticut State Attorney John Durham to lead the review of whether US intelligence and law enforcement agencies acted properly when they examined possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, which ultimately led to the Mueller investigation.

Trump, who calls the Russia investigation a witch hunt and a hoax, says US officials launched the probe to undermine his chances of winning the White House, although he and his supporters have provided no evidence.

Trump is also grappling with a Democratic-led impeachment inquiry focused on his request in a July telephone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, who is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination to face Trump in the 2020 election.

A US Justice Department review into the origins of the probe into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 US presidential election is now a criminal investigation, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday (October 24).

A US Justice Department review into the origins of the probe into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 US presidential election is now a criminal investigation, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday (October 24). The person, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, declined to say whether a grand jury has been convened in the investigation. The development was first reported by the New York Times. US Attorney General William Barr launched a review earlier this year to investigate President Donald Trump's complaints that his campaign was improperly targeted by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies during the 2016 election. Democrats and some former law enforcement officials say Barr is using the Justice Department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that could benefit the Republican president politically and undermine former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. As part of his inquiry, Barr has asked Australian and British justice officials for assistance and visited Italy twice, meeting intelligence agents in Rome in August and September to learn more about people mentioned in Mueller's report. Mueller's investigation found that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump, and led to criminal convictions of several former campaign aides. But Mueller concluded that he did not have enough evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy with Russia. Barr appointed Connecticut State Attorney John Durham to lead the review of whether US intelligence and law enforcement agencies acted properly when they examined possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, which ultimately led to the Mueller investigation. Trump, who calls the Russia investigation a witch hunt and a hoax, says US officials launched the probe to undermine his chances of winning the White House, although he and his supporters have provided no evidence. Trump is also grappling with a Democratic-led impeachment inquiry focused on his request in a July telephone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, who is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination to face Trump in the 2020 election.

US Justice Department review of origins of Russia probe turns into criminal investigation: Source

The US Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/snowden-says-he-hopes-france-will-grant-him-asylum-249728"> Edward Snowden </a>seeking to prevent the former CIA employee and National Security Agency contractor from profiting from his new book.

The civil lawsuit against Snowden, who is living in Russia after leaking information about the US government's mass surveillance program, accuses him of violating non-disclosure agreements he signed with the CIA and NSA.

Snowden retorted on Twitter that "Permanent Record," which went on sale on Tuesday, is "the book the government doesn't want you to read."

The suit alleges that Snowden published his book without first submitting it to the two government agencies for pre-publication review.

In a statement, the Justice Department said it was not trying to block publication but is seeking to recover any book proceeds earned by Snowden, who is facing espionage charges that could send him to prison for decades.

The publisher of the book, Macmillan Publishers, was also named in the lawsuit "to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden," the Justice Department said.

"Edward Snowden has violated an obligation he undertook to the United States when he signed agreements as part of his employment by the CIA and as an NSA contractor," assistant attorney general Jody Hunt said.

"The United States' ability to protect sensitive national security information depends on employees' and contractors' compliance with their non-disclosure agreements," Hunt said.

"We will not permit individuals to enrich themselves, at the expense of the United States, without complying with their pre-publication review obligations."

G. Zachary Terwilliger, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where the lawsuit was filed, said the suit was intended to "ensure that Edward Snowden receives no monetary benefits from breaching the trust placed in him."

"Intelligence information should protect our nation, not provide personal profit," Terwilliger said.

'Stamp of authenticity'?

Snowden countered,&nbsp;"It is hard to think of a greater stamp of authenticity than the US government filing a lawsuit claiming your book is so truthful that it was literally against the law to write."

The former NSA contractor has been living in Russia since leaking thousands of classified documents to the press in 2013 which revealed the scope of US government surveillance after 9/11.

Praised as a whistleblower and a privacy advocate by his defenders, the United States accuses Snowden of endangering national security and filed charges against him under the Espionage Act.

In an interview with "CBS This Morning" broadcast Monday, he said he would like to return home -- if he can get a fair trial.

The US Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Edward Snowden seeking to prevent the former CIA employee and National Security Agency contractor from profiting from his new book.

The US Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Edward Snowden seeking to prevent the former CIA employee and National Security Agency contractor from profiting from his new book. The civil lawsuit against Snowden, who is living in Russia after leaking information about the US government's mass surveillance program, accuses him of violating non-disclosure agreements he signed with the CIA and NSA. Snowden retorted on Twitter that "Permanent Record," which went on sale on Tuesday, is "the book the government doesn't want you to read." The suit alleges that Snowden published his book without first submitting it to the two government agencies for pre-publication review. In a statement, the Justice Department said it was not trying to block publication but is seeking to recover any book proceeds earned by Snowden, who is facing espionage charges that could send him to prison for decades. The publisher of the book, Macmillan Publishers, was also named in the lawsuit "to ensure that no funds are transferred to Snowden," the Justice Department said. "Edward Snowden has violated an obligation he undertook to the United States when he signed agreements as part of his employment by the CIA and as an NSA contractor," assistant attorney general Jody Hunt said. "The United States' ability to protect sensitive national security information depends on employees' and contractors' compliance with their non-disclosure agreements," Hunt said. "We will not permit individuals to enrich themselves, at the expense of the United States, without complying with their pre-publication review obligations." G. Zachary Terwilliger, US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, where the lawsuit was filed, said the suit was intended to "ensure that Edward Snowden receives no monetary benefits from breaching the trust placed in him." "Intelligence information should protect our nation, not provide personal profit," Terwilliger said. 'Stamp of authenticity'? Snowden countered, "It is hard to think of a greater stamp of authenticity than the US government filing a lawsuit claiming your book is so truthful that it was literally against the law to write." The former NSA contractor has been living in Russia since leaking thousands of classified documents to the press in 2013 which revealed the scope of US government surveillance after 9/11. Praised as a whistleblower and a privacy advocate by his defenders, the United States accuses Snowden of endangering national security and filed charges against him under the Espionage Act. In an interview with "CBS This Morning" broadcast Monday, he said he would like to return home -- if he can get a fair trial.

US Justice Department sues American whistleblower Snowden over new book

The US Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/companies-using-facebook-like-button-liable-for-data-european-union-court-239226">Facebook acquisitions</a> were aimed at buying up potential rivals before they could become a threat to the social media company, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The company's acquisition practices are the main focus of the probe, as the FTC looks into Facebook buying technology-based startups to keep them from challenging it, the report said.

The world's largest social network has purchased nearly 90 companies since 2003, according to data provided by S&amp;P Global. Those include messaging service WhatsApp and image sharing app Instagram, both of which have since grown into social behemoths in their own right.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-to-lift-veil-on-facebook-google-algorithms-to-protect-privacy-238610">Also read:&nbsp;Now, Australia to 'lift veil' on Facebook, Google algorithms to protect privacy</a>

Facebook last week said the FTC had opened an antitrust investigation in June looking into the areas of "social networking or social media services, digital advertising, and/or mobile or online applications."

Both FTC and Facebook, whose shares Facebook shares fell 0.77 per cent declined to comment on the report.

The US Justice Department said on July 23 it was opening a broad review of major digital technology firms, looking into whether they engage in anti-competitive practices, a clear signal that President Donald Trump's administration is stepping up its scrutiny of the industry.

In June, Reuters reported that the FTC and the Justice Department, which enforce US antitrust laws, have divided oversight over the big four tech companies, with Amazon and Facebook under the watch of the FTC, and Apple and Alphabet Inc's Google under the Justice Department.

Last month, Facebook settled an FTC probe into allegations of inappropriately sharing data of 87 million users with the now-defunct British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. Facebook will pay a record-breaking $5 billion fine.

The company has increasingly relied on its acquisitions to power growth in recent years, as the number of new users signing up for its core "blue app" has tapered off in lucrative markets. According to its most recent figures, more than 2.7 billion people use one of Facebook's family of apps each month.

While Facebook does not release user or revenue figures for each service, executives presenting the company's earnings last week cited Instagram as a key driver of ad impression growth, the company's main source of revenue.

George Hay, a professor of antitrust law at Cornell University and a former Justice Department lawyer, said the FTC's investigation of Facebook is likely to focus on section two of the Sherman Act, which makes it unlawful to acquire monopoly power through improper means.

Facebook will likely argue that there were valid, pro-consumer justifications for its acquisitions, and Hay said it may be difficult for the FTC to prove the transactions undermined competition.

"It is a possible theory, but it is not a compelling theory," Hay said. "I think the FTC will do a thorough job but it is not obvious to me they will build a case out of it."

In Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike have expressed growing concern about the size of the largest tech firms and their market power. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has called for breaking up companies like Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook and unwinding prior acquisitions.

In July, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel pressed executives from the four firms about their competitive practices and noted that Google, Facebook, Amazon had a rising share of key markets.

Members of Congress have also expressed concern about Facebook's control of vast amounts of user data, citing the Cambridge Analytica scandal and a string of other privacy breaches.

It is rare for the US government to seek to undo a consummated deal. The most famous case in recent memory is the government's effort to break up Microsoft Corp. The Justice Department won a preliminary victory in 2000 but was reversed on appeal. The case settled with Microsoft intact.

The US Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether Facebook acquisitions were aimed at buying up potential rivals before they could become a threat to the social media company, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The US Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether Facebook acquisitions were aimed at buying up potential rivals before they could become a threat to the social media company, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter. The company's acquisition practices are the main focus of the probe, as the FTC looks into Facebook buying technology-based startups to keep them from challenging it, the report said. The world's largest social network has purchased nearly 90 companies since 2003, according to data provided by S&P Global. Those include messaging service WhatsApp and image sharing app Instagram, both of which have since grown into social behemoths in their own right. Also read: Now, Australia to 'lift veil' on Facebook, Google algorithms to protect privacy Facebook last week said the FTC had opened an antitrust investigation in June looking into the areas of "social networking or social media services, digital advertising, and/or mobile or online applications." Both FTC and Facebook, whose shares Facebook shares fell 0.77 per cent declined to comment on the report. The US Justice Department said on July 23 it was opening a broad review of major digital technology firms, looking into whether they engage in anti-competitive practices, a clear signal that President Donald Trump's administration is stepping up its scrutiny of the industry. In June, Reuters reported that the FTC and the Justice Department, which enforce US antitrust laws, have divided oversight over the big four tech companies, with Amazon and Facebook under the watch of the FTC, and Apple and Alphabet Inc's Google under the Justice Department. Last month, Facebook settled an FTC probe into allegations of inappropriately sharing data of 87 million users with the now-defunct British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. Facebook will pay a record-breaking $5 billion fine. The company has increasingly relied on its acquisitions to power growth in recent years, as the number of new users signing up for its core "blue app" has tapered off in lucrative markets. According to its most recent figures, more than 2.7 billion people use one of Facebook's family of apps each month. While Facebook does not release user or revenue figures for each service, executives presenting the company's earnings last week cited Instagram as a key driver of ad impression growth, the company's main source of revenue. George Hay, a professor of antitrust law at Cornell University and a former Justice Department lawyer, said the FTC's investigation of Facebook is likely to focus on section two of the Sherman Act, which makes it unlawful to acquire monopoly power through improper means. Facebook will likely argue that there were valid, pro-consumer justifications for its acquisitions, and Hay said it may be difficult for the FTC to prove the transactions undermined competition. "It is a possible theory, but it is not a compelling theory," Hay said. "I think the FTC will do a thorough job but it is not obvious to me they will build a case out of it." In Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike have expressed growing concern about the size of the largest tech firms and their market power. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has called for breaking up companies like Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook and unwinding prior acquisitions. In July, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel pressed executives from the four firms about their competitive practices and noted that Google, Facebook, Amazon had a rising share of key markets. Members of Congress have also expressed concern about Facebook's control of vast amounts of user data, citing the Cambridge Analytica scandal and a string of other privacy breaches. It is rare for the US government to seek to undo a consummated deal. The most famous case in recent memory is the government's effort to break up Microsoft Corp. The Justice Department won a preliminary victory in 2000 but was reversed on appeal. The case settled with Microsoft intact.

US Federal Trade Commission probing Facebook's acquisition practices: Report

Four Chinese nationals have been indicted for financial dealings with North Korean companies sanctioned for involvement in the production of weapons of mass destruction(WMD), the US Justice Department said Tuesday.

Ma Xiaohong, the head of Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co. Ltd, and three top executives of the Chinese company were indicted by a federal grand jury in New Jersey, the department said in a statement.

"Through the use of more than 20 front companies, the defendants are alleged to have sought to obscure illicit financial dealings on behalf of sanctioned North Korean entities that were involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," assistant attorney general John Demers said.

"Ma, her company, and her employees tried to defraud the United States by evading sanctions restrictions and doing business with proliferators of weapons of mass destruction," said US Attorney Craig Carpenito.

According to the indictment, DHID worked with North Korea-based Korea Kwangson Banking Corp. (KKBC), which has ties to two other sanctioned North Korean entities -&nbsp;Tanchon Commercial Bank (Tanchon) and Korea Hyoksin Trading Corporation (Hyoksin).

Tanchon and Hyoksin are subject to US sanctions because of their links with the Korea Mining Development Trading Co. (KOMID), which the United States considers North Korea's premier arms dealer and main exporter of goods and equipment related to ballistic missiles and conventional weapons.

Four Chinese nationals have been indicted for financial dealings with North Korean companies sanctioned for involvement in the production of weapons of mass destruction(WMD), the US Justice Department said Tuesday.

Four Chinese nationals have been indicted for financial dealings with North Korean companies sanctioned for involvement in the production of weapons of mass destruction(WMD), the US Justice Department said Tuesday. Ma Xiaohong, the head of Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co. Ltd, and three top executives of the Chinese company were indicted by a federal grand jury in New Jersey, the department said in a statement. "Through the use of more than 20 front companies, the defendants are alleged to have sought to obscure illicit financial dealings on behalf of sanctioned North Korean entities that were involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," assistant attorney general John Demers said. "Ma, her company, and her employees tried to defraud the United States by evading sanctions restrictions and doing business with proliferators of weapons of mass destruction," said US Attorney Craig Carpenito. According to the indictment, DHID worked with North Korea-based Korea Kwangson Banking Corp. (KKBC), which has ties to two other sanctioned North Korean entities - Tanchon Commercial Bank (Tanchon) and Korea Hyoksin Trading Corporation (Hyoksin). Tanchon and Hyoksin are subject to US sanctions because of their links with the Korea Mining Development Trading Co. (KOMID), which the United States considers North Korea's premier arms dealer and main exporter of goods and equipment related to ballistic missiles and conventional weapons.

US indicts Chinese nationals for dealings with North Korean companies in producing weapons of mass destruction

us-justice-department

Us Justice Department, News on Us Justice Department, stories on Us Justice Department, articles on Us Justice Department, Us Justice Department stories at Wion, Us Justice Department news, Us Justice Department latest news

us justice-department