Listen Live:

ABC - Politics News
Subscribe To This Feed

Yana Paskova/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge on Wednesday granted Michael Cohen’s request to delay the start of his prison sentence, providing President Donald Trump’s former longtime fixer and personal attorney two more months of freedom before serving his three-year term.

“Given Mr. Cohen’s recent surgery and his health and recovery needs,” U.S. Judge William Pauley agreed to grant an “extension of his reporting date for sixty (60) days, from March 6, 2019, to May 6, 2019.”

In a letter to the judge, attorneys for Cohen said federal prosecutors in New York did not object to the extension.

Cohen pleaded guilty in August to six felonies associated with his personal business dealings, including tax evasion and making false statements to a bank, and two felony campaign finance violations in connection with his role in arranging non-disclosure agreements during Trump's campaign with two women who had claimed past affairs with the president -- affairs Trump has denied.

Cohen’s legal team also cited their client’s prospective congressional testimony as rationale for a temporary delay in his sentencing.

“Mr. Cohen also anticipates being called to testify before three (3) Congressional committees at the end of the month,” Cohen’s attorneys wrote in a letter to Judge Pauley.

Since the beginning of the year, Cohen has delayed planned appearances before the House Intelligence Committee, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

His spokesman, Lanny Davis, has pledged that Cohen will appear before those panels before reporting to prison.

In an appearance on ABC News’ podcast, “The Investigation,” earlier this week, Davis said that while Cohen cannot talk about subjects vital to the special counsel investigation, he can describe his life at Trump's side, where he spent years as a lawyer and fixer.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump on Wednesday continued to demand that California return billions in federal funds it received to construct a high-speed rail project between San Francisco and California -- a demand now joined by his Transportation Department and one the state's Democratic governor is calling "political retribution."

The Transportation Department -- the agency that doled out the nearly $3.5 billion -- has threatened to seize it back after California led the charge on Monday to sue Trump over his national emergency declaration to get funding for his proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement Tuesday that Trump's calls are retaliation for California's role in leading a 16-state coalition's lawsuit, pointing to a Trump tweet Tuesday that mentioned both the lawsuit and said "California, the state that has wasted billions of dollars on their out of control Fast Train, with no hope of completion, seems in charge!"

"It's no coincidence that the administration's threat comes 24 hours after California led 16 states in challenging the president's farcical 'national emergency,'" Newsom said in a statement. "This is clear political retribution by President Trump, and we won't sit idly by. This is California's money, and we are going to fight for it."

A Trump tweet Wednesday referred to "cost overruns" and demanded: "Send the Federal Government back the Billions of Dollars WASTED!"

A change in the project's initial plan to have a high-speed rail stretch across the state was cited by both the president and the Transportation Department's insistence that the money be returned.

 In a letter Tuesday, the Transportation Department notified the California High-Speed Rail Authority that it intends to terminate its agreement and end the approximately $929 million California received for the project under the Obama administration.

The letter, signed by Federal Railroad Administrator Ronald L. Batory, cited multiple "failures" of the project, such as its inability to be completed by 2022 and Newsom's recent comments at his State of the State address last week where he announced a change in plans for the rail.

Newsom said efforts will be focused on finishing construction in the Central Valley, rather than the original plan that "would cost too much and take too long."

 In a separate statement Tuesday, the Transportation Department said it was also "actively exploring every legal option" to seize back $2.5 billion of federal funds the Federal Railroad Administration granted for the project.

"The agency reviewed options regarding funding for this project last week following the Governor's comments made during his State of the State address," a Transportation Department spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday. "Governor Newsom's recent comments significantly alter the scope and objectives of the California High Speed Rail project, eliminating the objective for which Federal funding was originally awarded – end-to-end high speed rail service from San Francisco to Los Angeles."

The 16-state coalition's lawsuit filed Monday alleges that the president's emergency declaration is unconstitutional. Trump foresaw the blitz of legal challenges that have followed his national emergency declaration and he criticized California's "Fast Train project" on Twitter Tuesday for being "hundreds of times more expensive than the desperately needed Wall!"

 In a statement Tuesday, California GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, defended the Transportation Department's decision.

"It is time is to move on from the broken high-speed rail project and redirect our efforts to infrastructure projects that work for Californians," McCarthy said.

Last week, Newsom suggested in a tweet that Trump was trying to get money for his border wall.

"This is CA's money, allocated by Congress for this project. We're not giving it back. The train is leaving the station — better get on board! (Also, desperately searching for some wall $$??)," Newsom tweeted.

When asked specifically on Wednesday if any of the $3.5 billion in federal funds could be used toward Trump's border wall if returned, a Transportation Department spokesperson said: "Under existing appropriations, these funds could become available for other passenger rail projects."

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

ERIC BARADAT/AFP/Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard defended her non-interventionist foreign policy stance in an interview on ABC's The View Wednesday, deflecting criticism painting her as an apologist of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by citing her own military service and the outcomes of those living in affected countries.

Gabbard, D-Hawaii, an Iraq War veteran who holds the rank of major in Hawaii's National Guard and is currently in her fourth term in the House of Representatives, argued further that the money spent on such conflicts could be better channeled towards domestic goals.

"It is those experiences of understanding and knowing first-hand the cost of war, both on our service members, on our veterans, as well as the cost on the people in the countries where we intervene, as well as the trillions of dollars, our taxpayer dollars, that are spent on waging these wars, dollars that are sorely needed to address the very real urgent needs of our families, our communities, our neighbors right here at home," she said.

Prior to her presidential campaign, the congresswoman was perhaps best known for a controversial 2017 trip to Syria to meet with Assad. She has since declined to label the leader an "enemy of the United States."

"An enemy of the United States is someone who threatens our safety and our security," Gabbard said on The View. "There is no disputing the fact that Bashar al-Assad and Syria is a brutal dictator. There's no disputing the fact that he has used chemical weapons and other weapons against his people… This is not something that I'm disputing, nor am I apologizing or defending these actions.


Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says "there's no disputing the fact" that Bashar Al-Assad is a "brutal dictator" who "has used chemical weapons" against his people, but adds that amid the US's "regime-change war," the "lives of the Syrian people have not been improved"

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 20, 2019


"My point is that the reality we are facing here is that, since the United States started waging a covert regime change war in Syria starting in 2011, the lives of the Syrian people have not been improved," she added, referencing U.S. funding of rebel groups to overthrow Assad under the Obama administration.

Long-rumored to be interested in a presidential run, Gabbard, who was one of the few Democratic members of Congress to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in 2016, surprised observers with a seemingly spur-of-the-moment campaign declaration during a CNN interview in January. She eventually followed that announcement with a formal launch event in Honolulu earlier this month, but her candidacy has already found itself embroiled in a number of controversies.

In addition to the continued questions about Syria, a January CNN report uncovered the congresswoman's past work for an organization run by her father that worked to pass a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

"Working with my father, Mike Gabbard, and others to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, I learned that real leaders are willing to make personal sacrifices for the common good. I will bring that attitude of public service to the legislature," she told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin as a 21-year-old state legislature candidate in 2002.

Gabbard apologized in the wake of the story, explaining that her views have since evolved and that she "regret[s] the positions [she] took in the past."

The congresswoman has additionally had to distance herself from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, who has long praised Gabbard, ranging back to the early days of the Trump administration, during which her non-interventionist views earned her consideration for the roles of secretary of state, secretary of defense and ambassador to the United Nations.

Expanding on her foreign policy approach on The View Wednesday, Gabbard was critical of U.S. involvement in the ongoing political unrest in Venezuela, where opposition leadership headed by Juan Guaidó -- and supported by the Trump administration -- is attempting to unseat President Nicolás Maduro.


The United States needs to stay out of Venezuela. Let the Venezuelan people determine their future. We don't want other countries to choose our leaders--so we have to stop trying to choose theirs.

— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) January 24, 2019


"Every time the United States, and particularly in Latin America, has gotten involved in regime change, using different tools to enact that regime change, there have been both short and long-term devastating impacts," Gabbard said. "If there are ways that we can work with surrounding countries to try to get humanitarian aid in to people there, then we should be doing that."


Rep. Tulsi Gabbard tells @TheView she is against U.S. intervention in Venezuela because "every time the United States, and particularly in Latin America, has gotten involved in regime change ... there have been both short and longterm devastating impacts"

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 20, 2019


"But for the United States to go in and choose who should be the leader of Venezuela, that is not something that serves the interests of the Venezuelan people," she continued. "That's something that they need to determine themselves."

On domestic policy, where the crowded Democratic field has begun to fracture in recent weeks, Gabbard expressed strong support for environmental aims, but said she does not endorse the proposed "Green New Deal," explaining that she believed the legislation was too vague.

On free college tuition and universal health care, however, two tentpoles of Sanders' insurgent 2016 campaign, Gabbard said that both were achievable and downplayed concerns about the costs of the latter, saying that expenses would be lower for those in the system and that it could be achieved alongside private insurance.

"Making sure that we have this basic quality level of care for every American is what Medicare for all would do and that's what I support," she said.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump on Wednesday cheered on Nick Sandmann after the parents of the Kentucky high school student filed a defamation suit against the Washington Post for its coverage of his encounter with a Native American activist at the Lincoln Memorial last month.

The suit, filed Tuesday, seeks $250 million in damages.

Sandmann, who wore a red "Make America Great Again" hat as he stood in front of activist Nathan Phillips as Phillips beat a drum and a crowd of Sandmann's fellow students from Covington Catholic High School cheered him on, got public support from the president soon after the video of the encounter took off and again on Wednesday morning.

In a tweet, Trump knocked the Washington Post as "Fake News" and told Sandmann to "go get them."

“The Washington Post ignored basic journalistic standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump.” Covington student suing WAPO. Go get them Nick. Fake News!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2019

The complaint, filed by Ted Sandmann and Julie Sandmann, Nicholas' parents, in U.S. District Court in Covington, alleged the Post "ignored basic journalist standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented, biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump ('the President') by impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the President."

Sandmann has said he received death threats in the aftermath of the news stories and the lawsuit claims the newspaper falsely said the teenager "instigated a confrontation with Phillips and subsequently engaged in racist conduct" and "assaulted Phillips."

The lawsuit detailed seven articles published by the Washington Post after the encounter.

In the days after the incident, Sandmann released a lengthy statement defending his actions in the short video that went viral and explaining his side of the story.

For the lawsuit, Sandmann's attorneys used an investigation by a third-party investigative firm in Ohio to "formally determine what occurred" and confirm Sandmann's description, the complaint reads, and released a long YouTube video titled "Nick Sandmann: The Truth in 15 Minutes."

In its own coverage of the lawsuit, the Post said a spokeswoman from the paper responded, "We are reviewing a copy of the lawsuit, and we plan to mount a vigorous defense."

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

ABC/Lorenzo Bevilaqua(WASHINGTON) -- Sen. Bernie Sanders touted an "unprecedented and historic grassroots campaign" in the launch of his presidential campaign. So far, so good.

Sanders' team announced just before 8 p.m. on Tuesday -- about 12 hours into his official campaign -- that over 330,000 people had donated a combined $4 million. The candidate's team also touted that the average donation was $27.

He put the full-court press on for donors throughout the first day of his campaign. He tweeted eight times asking for donations -- seven times in English and once in Spanish -- on Tuesday.

The senator blew past the early donation totals from the other candidates already involved in the 2020 race. California Sen. Kamala Harris, who announced her candidacy on ABC News' Good Morning America on Jan. 21, raised $1.5 million on her first day -- a total her staff happily touted showed "numbers [that] reveal a campaign powered by the people."

At least a dozen Democrats have already announced they are mounting a challenge to President Donald Trump next year, including Harris and fellow Sens. Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren; Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana; former secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Barack Obama, Julian Castro; former Maryland Rep. John Delaney; and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Other blockbuster names who could enter the race include former Vice President Joe Biden and billionaire ex-New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Sanders, I-Vt., earned a reputation as a populist candidate running a similar campaign in 2016 to what he is likely to run this time. He touted "Medicare-for-all," free college education and a $15 minimum wage both three years ago and Tuesday in announcing his second presidential run.

He readily identifies as a Democratic socialist in an era when political candidates like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., have been elected on the same platform.

Hillary Clinton beat out the 77-year-old for the Democratic nomination in 2016 before she eventually lost to Trump. At 79, he would be the oldest president ever elected in November 2020.

Trump had kind words for Sanders at an announcement about the Space Force on Tuesday, saying, "I think he was taken advantage of. He ran great four years ago and he was not treated with respect by Clinton."

Sanders is dealing with different circumstances than 2016. He has been criticized over his 2016 campaign's handling of sexual harassment claims made by women against senior members of his staff.

He apologized for "inadequate" standards and 2016 campaign manager Jeff Weaver told ABC News on Tuesday that the candidate would "forcefully" address the issue in his new campaign.

Sanders served as a congressman from 1991 to 2006 and then as senator the past 13 years.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

franckreporter/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made no secret of her intentions -- she wants Congress to wield just as much power as the president.

"You've heard me say over and over again, Article I, the legislative branch, the power of the purse, the power to declare war, many other powers listed in the Constitution, and, of course, the responsibility to have oversight," Pelosi said during a press conference last week.

One of those most responsible for insuring Congress is able to assert that power is the man she hired to serve as general counsel of the House of Representatives, Douglas Letter -- a veteran Justice Department lawyer who has spent years helping presidents argue just the opposite.

"He has a very deep understanding of the executive branch and how the Department of Justice argues to defend those interests," said John Bies, who was a colleague of Letter’s during eight years at the Justice Department under former President Barack Obama. "His new role will require him to shift his perspective, but I think he’s very capable of doing that."

Most recently, that has put Letter in charge of mapping out plans for a potential lawsuit over the president’s controversial national emergency declaration to free up money to build a border wall, and grab for Congress’ most potent tool -- the power of the purse.

But Congress and the White House could clash over an array of pivotal questions. Can Congress review copies of the president’s tax returns? Can they compel the attorney general to produce a copy of the special counsel report on meddling in the 2016 elections? Can they force the State Department interpreter who helped President Donald Trump converse with Russian President Vladimir Putin to tell them what was discussed?

"He knows very well what arguments to anticipate from the other side," Bies said, "and I think he knows the strengths and weaknesses of those arguments."

Letter has been described by former colleagues as adept at navigating and troubleshooting the thorniest legal challenges under the administrations of both parties during his time at Justice.

"In the recent history of the Department of Justice, a few career officials have served with such sustained distinction through both Republican and Democratic administrations that they came to embody the essence of the department as an institution to personify its finest traditions," said David Laufman, the former head of DOJ’s counterintelligence and export control section who overlapped with Letter at DOJ. "Doug Letter is in that elite company."

The position of chief counsel is a nonpartisan one, but partisan clashes are all but inevitable. On the first day of the new Congress, the speaker directed Letter to start defending the Affordable Care Act, something Republicans and the current administration have spent years trying to tear down.

Still, those who know the position, and Letter, said he’s capable of offering legal advice to both parties without favor.

"It’s a unique and fascinating role for a lawyer, because the general counsel serves at the pleasure of the speaker but is responsible for providing confidential legal advice and representation to members and staff on both sides of the aisle," said Thomas Hungar, the previous general counsel in the Republican controlled House.

The Office of General Counsel is typically composed of 10 staff members -- attorneys, law clerks and administrative personnel, who represent the House of Representatives as an institution responsible for giving legal advice to leadership and staff on both sides of the aisle. In some ways, they assume the role of a managing partner of a law firm.

Letter, who did not respond to a request for an interview, said in December that he was looking forward to the experience.

"I am eager to apply my litigation experience as I take on the challenges and opportunities that come with the important position of House general counsel," he said in a prepared statement released by Pelosi’s office.

Democrats are already leaning on Letter as they begin to expand their oversight investigations.

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in an interview that he is working "very closely" with the counsel’s office as his committee begins its new investigation into the Trump administration. Schiff has said the committee's new probe will "go beyond" the question of Russian influence.

"We have encouraged the other committees to do the same, and that means everything from vetting language for subpoenas or strategizing about how to get information, what predicate is necessary," Schiff said. "They’re a full partner."

Democrats have consulted with Letter on the subject of how to best obtain information on the president’s meetings with Putin from the translator who accompanied Trump.

Both Schiff and Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, have contemplated issuing a subpoena to the interpreter or to the State Department for any of her notes.

“That’s an issue I’ve discussed with the general counsel and my staff is also discussing within the office. It’s not one we’ve reached a resolution on but we’re going through the various legal issues and strategies,” Schiff told ABC News.

Letter will have to adjust to a more hurried time-table. Court challenges can sometimes take years, but Democratic lawmakers have acknowledged that they essentially have about a year to mount their collective fight ahead of a tumultuous 2020 presidential election.

Those who have worked with Letter say he is up to the task.

“Non-ideological, wise, diligent, brilliant, and deeply experienced -- there is literally no one better suited to the job,” said Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Mario Tama/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- 2020 presidential candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a mother who knows the struggle of affordable child care from her own experience, unveiled a plan on Tuesday to guarantee child care and early learning programs to every child in the U.S. for free or for far less.

"It will be free for millions of American families, and affordable for everyone," Warren wrote in a 1,700-word description of the plan published in a post on Medium Tuesday.

Warren, a two-term senator from Massachusetts, is one of nearly a dozen Democrats running to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020.

The initiative, dubbed the Universal Child Care and Early Learning plan, would provide options for formal care and early education to every kid in the country, beginning at birth and continuing until school age, according to the plan. Families, based on certain income levels, would qualify for free care, while those who didn't would see prices capped at 7 percent of their annual income, Warren wrote.

An independent analysis found that around eight million kids would have access to the programs for free, according to Moody's Analytics.

The benefits of early child care have long been documented, even showing taxpayers can make money back when investing in high-quality early education.

"My plan gives every kid a fair shot," Warren wrote. "In the wealthiest country on the planet, access to affordable and high-quality child care and early education should be a right, not a privilege reserved for the rich."

Warren's plan intends to partner already-existing child care providers with resources provided by the federal government, which would "pick up a huge chunk of the cost of operating these new high-quality options," according to the plan.

The government would hold providers to new "high national standards" and child care providers would get a pay bump through the federal subsidy that would reflect what's expected of the guidelines -- which Warren described as comparable to the work and pay of public school teachers.

Any family making two times the federal poverty level, which varies depending on family size, would qualify for free child care. That would include, for example, any family of four making less than $50,200 a year, or any single parents making less than $32,920 a year.

If a family made more than 200 percent of the federal poverty line, they would be charged no more than 7 percent of their total income.

"My plan provides the kind of big, structural change we need transform child care from a privilege for the wealthy to a right for every child in America," Warren wrote.

Warren plans to pay for the child care initiative with another plan she's campaigning on: her Ultra-Millionaire Tax, which would tax families who have a net worth of more than $50 million.

The Ultra-Millionaire Tax would generate about four times more than what would be needed to pay for the Universal Child Care and Early Learning plan, according to Warren.

Warren's campaign estimated 12 million children would be able to take advantage of the new program.

"My Universal Child Care and Early Learning program is a win-win-win: it’s great for parents, for kids, and for the economy," Warren wrote Tuesday.

Warren's plan is of personal interest. She raised her two children while navigating her early career as a lawyer and law school professor. She had her daughter while attending law school at Rutgers University in New Jersey, often taking her to campus with her, and it wasn't long after she had her second child -- and divorced her husband, taking on the challenge of single motherhood -- that she was teaching law at the University of Houston.

She often speaks of the difficulties of affording care -- and the quality of care she wanted for her kids -- while working. In unveiling her plan, she described an incident in Houston, when she picked her son up from day care and found he had "been left in a dirty diaper for who knows how long."

"I was upset with the daycare but, more than anything, angry with myself for failing my baby," Warren wrote Tuesday.

Warren credits an elderly aunt from Oklahoma, who moved in with her soon after she moved to Texas, as the only reason she was able to take care of her children while holding onto her job.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

robertcicchetti/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- After a turbulent two years for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, caught in the middle of President Donald Trump’s ire over special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia-related investigation, who is the man Trump is nominating to replace Rosenstein?

His name is Jeffrey Rosen, and he’s already the number-two at another federal agency, the Transportation Department. He and newly-installed Attorney General William Barr worked together years ago at the powerhouse law firm Kirkland & Ellis.

According to Rosen’s official biography, he worked at the firm for nearly 30 years, before and after two stints in government.

Under the George W. Bush administration, Rosen first served as a top lawyer in the Transportation Department, and then as general counsel and senior policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. Afterward, he returned to private practice.

He rejoined the federal government shortly after Trump took office, and as deputy secretary at the Transportation Department “he acts as the Department’s Chief Operating Officer and advises and assists the Secretary in leading the Department's Operating Administrations and more than 50,000 employees,” his official biography states.

The deputy attorney general is also “similar to a chief operating officer,” Rosenstein said after assuming the position in 2017.

Both roles also focus on one basic mission: public safety.

During his Senate confirmation hearing to join the Transportation Department in 2017, Rosen said government agencies should “implement the law” as Congress has written it.

“I have a somewhat simple view, that if Congress has written the law then the [government] agencies should implement the law,” Rosen said.

Rosen graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1982, and he earned a bachelor’s degree from Northwest University three years earlier.

He now lives in Virginia with his wife. They have three adult children.

As ABC News reported Monday, Rosenstein has begun telling colleagues he plans to leave the Justice Department by the middle of March. Rosen is Barr's top pick to replace Rosenstein, according to a Justice Department official familiar with the matter.

The White House announced Trump's intent to nominate Rosen in a news release late Tuesday.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Pete Marovich/Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- The former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, said Tuesday that he “absolutely” will trust the conclusions ultimately reached by special counsel Robert Mueller, even if that means Mueller determines President Donald Trump hasn’t coordinated his actions with the Russian government.

“I have total confidence in Director Mueller, and the team he’s put together,” McCabe said on ABC’s The View Tuesday. “I will have complete faith in the conclusions that they draw.”

Nevertheless, McCabe told the show’s hosts he had serious concerns that Trump “may be a threat to national security.”

Asked specifically by host Joy Behar whether he believed Trump had been acting as an agent of the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign or shortly after taking office, McCabe said, “We believed that could be possible, and that’s why we opened those cases.”

McCabe was referring to two cases he opened in the days after James Comey was fired as FBI director in May 2017: an investigation into whether Trump was coordinating with Russian operatives, and an investigation into whether Trump was trying to obstruct the FBI’s larger probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

On “The View,” McCabe reiterated previous concerns about Comey’s firing, Trump’s public attacks on the investigation, and Trump’s alleged request of Comey that the FBI back off of its scrutiny of national security adviser Mike Flynn, who lied about his contacts with the Russian government.

The president “fired the director when [Comey] didn’t do the things that the president asked,” and that became “an important part” of the subsequent investigation launched by McCabe, the former deputy director said.

Just minutes before McCabe appeared on the show Tuesday, Trump took to Twitter to attack McCabe as a liar motivated by politics. Trump echoed sentiments from the day before, when the president similarly dismissed McCabe's allegations as a bunch of "lies" coming from a "disgraced" official who was fired from the FBI last year for allegedly misleading internal investigators about a leak to the media.

Asked Tuesday whether he has ever “leaked” to the media, McCabe insisted he has not, but he did not say whether he’s ever shared investigative information with the media.

He said that, as deputy director, he was “one of two people at the FBI who had the authority to disclose information to the media,” and that authority is “baked in” to FBI guidelines.

Nevertheless, federal prosecutors are currently weighing whether to bring charges against McCabe for his alleged falsehoods to investigators looking into how information related to a probe of the Clinton Foundation was shared with a reporter.

As for the investigations he opened against Trump, McCabe on Tuesday said he talked with Rosenstein and senior FBI officials about it at the time, and key lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were also informed about the new probes.

McCabe recounted how, during separate meetings in the days after Comey was fired, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raised the possibility of wearing a wire into the White House to secretly record the president, and questioned whether the 25th Amendment might be used to oust Trump from office.

“We did not follow up on” either matter, McCabe said. “It never went beyond the realm of a brief off-handed comment.”

As the public waits for Mueller to wrap up his investigation, McCabe said he believes Mueller’s findings should be shared publicly “in the broadest way possible.”

McCabe’s interview with The View was part of a weeks-long media tour for him as he promotes his new book, The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Alex Wong/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Last week, on a rainy and bitterly cold night in Washington, D.C., a senior Trump administration official at the Justice Department, Stephen Boyd, trudged to a Capitol Hill bar to meet with a powerful Democrat’s top investigator.

The meeting, described to ABC News by a Justice Department official, came after a dramatic showdown days earlier between the Justice Department and House Democrats – a dispute allegedly supercharged by a leak from inside the attorney general's office.

"He has the worst job in Washington," another Trump appointee recently said of Boyd, who as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs acts as the Justice Department's go-between to Congress.

Less than 24 hours before then-acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was set to testify to the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats prepared a subpoena that could be delivered on live TV if he didn't offer details about private conversations with the president.

In a rapid exchange of letters, Boyd accused Democrats of trying to create "a spectacle" and insisted Whitaker wouldn't show up unless they ruled out, in writing, a subpoena the next day. But the committee's chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., only offered a vague response.

They were at an impasse – until Boyd picked up the phone and made a promise to Nadler's aide: If Nadler penned a letter vowing no imminent subpoena, then the letter would not be made public.
In essence, Boyd's promise meant Nadler could avoid even undeserved criticism that he caved to Whitaker's demands, and the much-anticipated hearing could go on as planned, according to the Justice Department official, who does not work in Boyd’s office but was told of the internal discussion.

Based on Boyd's assurance, Nadler privately sent a new letter to Whitaker, clearly stating, "[T]here is no need to issue a subpoena tomorrow."

The letter, however, was soon posted online by Rep. Doug Collins, a Georgia Republican, the committee’s top Republican. Collins later mocked the committee chairman's "full-blown cave.”

Nadler's office was blindsided.

And after Whitaker dodged several questions at the hearing the next day, Boyd asked the Democratic investigator to meet face-to-face, hoping to salvage their working relationship. At the Capitol Hill bar, Boyd relayed a surprising discovery: One of Whitaker's own senior aides forwarded Nadler's private letter to Collins' office, behind Boyd’s back.

That's how the letter became public, the Justice Department official told ABC News.

In some ways, Boyd's meeting at the bar reflects a time when Republicans and Democrats regularly mingled – and found compromise – away from the office. But the circumstances behind the meeting also underscore how distant those days have become.

Nearly two years ago, as Boyd was preparing to take over the Office of Legislative Affairs, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, warned him how treacherous his job would be.

"Mr. Boyd, you're about to run into a buzz saw. You do know this, don't you?" Graham asked during Boyd's Senate confirmation hearing in May 2017.

"That's what I'm told," Boyd responded.

Since being confirmed, Boyd has been at the center of some of the Trump era's most contentious political battles, under pressure not only from Democrats but also fellow Republicans and – as recently illustrated – some of his own Justice Department colleagues.

"Every day is a four-alarm fire," according to Ron Weich, who held Boyd's post at the Justice Department under the Obama administration.

Boyd is on "the front line of the struggle" between two branches of government, and he "needs to protect the [Justice] Department from legislative interference, but also needs to smooth the way for legitimate congressional oversight," Weich said.

Graham – the one who warned Boyd about running into a buzz saw – is now the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and one of his self-professed priorities is to "hold accountable" anyone who exhibited "blatant political bias" during the FBI's investigation of possible ties between Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Russian operatives.

That federal probe has dogged Boyd for the past two years, with Republican House members threatening to hold Boyd's bosses in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over classified documents or secret information about human sources used during the FBI's investigation.

In letters to those lawmakers, Boyd insisted they were seeking information so sensitive that it was stored only at the FBI, not even in secure rooms at the Justice Department designed to protect classified information.

Conservatives jumped on Boyd – a solid conservative himself – claiming Boyd's response wreaked of "arrogance," as then-congressman Dave Brat, R-Va., put it.

"Stephen Boyd is ... as much responsible for the slow-walking as anybody else," bemoaned Fox News Channel's senior judicial analyst, Andrew Napolitano.

Meanwhile, Boyd has also frustrated some Democrats for what they see as his lack of responsiveness.

But people on both sides of the aisle still describe Boyd as a positive, smart force inside the Justice Department who acts in good faith. One Democratic staffer even called him "very nice," and Weich praised what he sees as Boyd's "calm, sensible approach."

That approach could be tested now that Democrats control the House and wield subpoena power again.

"It's a whole new level of tension when the opposing party takes over," and Boyd should prepare for "one hostile hearing after another," Weich insisted.

Nadler and his fellow Democrats are already pressing the Justice Department on an array of issues. Among the questions they have: Are investigative decisions being improperly influenced by the White House? Why has the Justice Department curtailed certain protections against discrimination? What is the Justice Department doing to stop gun violence across the country or fix the nation's broken immigration system?

Boyd, now 40, has been navigating –- and at times taking part in -- thorny issues for nearly 15 years.

Years before he joined the Justice Department under attorney general Jeff Sessions, Boyd worked as a spokesman for then-senator Sessions. And during that time, at the start of Barack Obama's presidency, Boyd helped promote Sessions' opposition to immigration reform efforts and his rejection of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor as nominees to the Supreme Court.

Boyd also helped Sessions push for terrorism suspects to be prosecuted at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the alleged masterminds of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are still waiting for their trial to begin.

Like Sessions, Boyd is an Alabama native. Boyd attended the University of Alabama and then graduated from law school there. After his time with Sessions in the Senate, he spent several years as chief of staff to Rep. Martha Roby, another conservative Republican from Alabama.

That type of Capitol Hill experience is key to Boyd's job now.

"Federal prosecutors and members of Congress speak two different languages, and [he] needs to speak both," Weich said.

Through a spokeswoman, Boyd declined to comment for this story.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Alexandra Beier/Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- Though former Vice President Joe Biden has said publicly he hasn’t made up his mind on pursuing a presidential run in 2020, sources close to the politician, who have spoken with him in private, say they believe he will mount a bid.

Robert Wolf, a top Democratic donor and former economic adviser to former President Barack Obama who has known Biden for over a decade, spoke with him last week and believes Biden is "90 percent there" on a run.

"It was clear that this was different than 2015," Wolf told ABC News. "This was someone who seemed ready to run and trying to figure out when best to announce.

"He feels he’s coming off an incredible midterm and he’s sitting in the best position to take on [President Donald] Trump across the country."

Biden also met with Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., last week. Her office confirmed to ABC News that Feinstein left the meeting with the sense that Biden would pursue a run.

However, when asked about his 2020 plans on Saturday during a discussion on election security at the Munich Security Conference, Biden demurred.

“I haven’t reached a decision. I am in that process of doing that, and I will in the near term let everyone know what that decision is,” Biden said.

As Biden contemplates his next steps, he has said he’s not in a rush to get in the race -- despite nearly a dozen Democrats having already announced their candidacy.

“I think there is a sufficient amount of time to [decide], and I think that we have a tendency, particularly in the States, to start the whole election process much too early,” Biden said in Munich.

A spokesperson for the former vice president said Biden's comments on Sunday speak for themselves.

While Biden is taking his time to make the decision, some allies are waiting in the wings to join any potential campaign.

James Smith, who ran for governor of South Carolina in 2018, said he has been in touch with Biden's current staff and has discussed who might be valuable to a Biden run in South Carolina.

"We are all anticipating it is not 'if' but 'when' he announces," Smith told ABC News.

Biden supported Smith's 2018 run and in a video message during the South Carolina Democratic Convention weekend said Smith reminds him of his late son, Beau. While Smith is not working at the direction of Biden, he believes that the former vice president will run and is preparing for that.

"He hasn’t told me he plans to run, but we are preparing for what we believe to be a 'Joe Biden for President' campaign that will be robust here in South Carolina," Smith said.

After a quieter public schedule throughout December and early January, Biden’s appearances have begun to pick up.

Aside from his trip to the Munich Security Conference -- of which he is a frequent attendee -- Biden has three other public events on his schedule for February.

Biden will appear at the University of Pennsylvania Tuesday for a discussion of “global affairs and other topical subjects.” He will also hold a discussion with author Jon Meacham at the University of Delaware on Feb. 26, a rescheduled event from early December.

Biden is also scheduled to give remarks at the inaugural Chuck Hagel Forum in Global Leadership at the University of Nebraska Omaha on Feb. 28. The theme of the event: “The Role of U.S. Leadership in a Changing World."

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump attacked California and its plans for a high-speed train on Twitter Tuesday as he responded to a 16-state coalition's lawsuit challenging his national emergency declaration.

"As I predicted, 16 states, led mostly by Open Border Democrats and the Radical Left, have filed a lawsuit in, of course, the 9th Circuit! California, the state that has wasted billions of dollars on their out of control Fast Train, with no hope of completion, seems in charge!" Trump tweeted.

Trump zeroed in on California, which is leading the group alleging that Trump's emergency declaration is unconstitutional.

"The failed Fast Train project in California, where the cost overruns are becoming world record setting, is hundreds of times more expensive than the desperately needed Wall!" Trump tweeted.

The "Fast Train" Trump mentions is referring to California's attempts to construct a high-speed rail project that would have ferried commuters between San Francisco and Los Angeles. According to the Associated Press, costs for the project have doubled to $77 billion and the anticipated date for the rail to be completed has been pushed back 13 years to 2033.

California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has sparred with Trump over federal funding for the project, and has said efforts will be focused on finishing construction in the Central Valley, rather than the original plan that "would cost too much and take too long," Newsom said in his State of the State address.

"President Trump, keep talking... we continue to gather evidence to support our lawsuit against you," California's Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra tweeted Tuesday in response to Trump.

Trump foresaw the challenge, noting what was to come in his speech Friday announcing the emergency declaration.

"We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the Ninth Circuit, even though it shouldn't be there," Trump said, "and we will possibly get a bad ruling and then we will get another bad ruling, and then we will end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will get a fair shake and win in the Supreme Court, just like the ban …"

The lawsuit cites Trump's own words as the "best evidence" his declaration of an emergency was invalid. On Friday, Trump said, "I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster," referring to getting money for his proposed wall on the southern border.

Asked on Fox News Sunday what Trump meant, White House Senior Adviser Stephen Miller said, "What the president was saying is that like past presidents, he could choose to ignore this crisis, choose to ignore this emergency as others have. But that's not what he's going to do."

The group that filed the complaint Monday includes attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia.

The lawsuit alleges that the states filing the suit "collectively stand to lose millions in federal funding that their National Guard units receive for domestic drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, and millions of dollars received on an annual basis for law enforcement programs," if Trump bypasses Congress to secure about $8 billion for the border wall through a mix of spending from congressional appropriations, executive action and an emergency declaration.

A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed last week; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget.

While it's unclear what specific projects may be affected by Trump's declaration, military projects and drug interdiction programs could be targeted as funds are reallocated.

The lawsuit claims public safety will be at risk and states economies' will be damaged, in addition to "irreparable environmental damage" to California and New Mexico's southern border.

"This 'emergency' is a national disgrace. Rather than focusing on fighting the real vulnerabilities facing Americans, the President is using the powers of America’s highest office to fan the flames of nativism and xenophobia. Our message to the White House is clear: California will not be part of this political theater. We will see you in court," Newsom said in a statement Monday.

Becerra said in a statement Monday, Trump "knows there is no border crisis, he knows his emergency declaration is unwarranted."

According to Customs and Border Protection data, apprehensions at the border are lower than they were over two decades ago. In 2001 there were 1,643,679 apprehensions at the border, compared with 396,579 in 2018 -- a more than 75 percent drop.

The 16-state coalition's lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is the third in a blitz of legal challenges that were filed shortly after Trump's declaration.

"We're suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states," Becerra said in Monday’s statement. "For most of us, the Office of the Presidency is not a place for theatre."

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

narvikk/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- Multiple whistleblowers sounded alarms about a plan backed by close advisers to President Donald Trump to transfer sensitive nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, according to a new report released by House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings on Tuesday.

House Democrats, who have been examining the issue for months, said they plan to investigate whether people close to Trump sought to profit by using White House connections to gain federal approvals.

“Based on this snapshot of events, the Committee is now launching an investigation to determine whether the actions being pursued by the Trump administration are in the national security interests of the United States, or, rather, serve those who stand to gain financially as a result of this potential change in U.S. foreign policy,” wrote Cummings, a Maryland Democrat.

The proposal, which began as a bid to sell nuclear reactors to the Saudis under the direction of Trump adviser and fundraiser Tom Barrack, the report said, was initially pushed by former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Cummings’ office has previously raised concerns that a consulting business Flynn once ran appeared to have a financial interest in the idea.

New testimony and documents collected by House investigators, summarized in Tuesday’s report, suggest the plan still had support within the White House after Flynn was fired in February of 2017, ahead of his conviction for lying to federal agents about his talks with Russians. And internal emails show that proponents of the plan continued to push for it even as career national security officials worried it violated administration protocol and ethics rules.

“The whistleblowers who came forward have expressed significant concerns about the potential procedural and legal violations connected with rushing through a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia,” Cummings wrote. “And they have warned about political appointees ignoring directives from top ethics advisers at the White House who repeatedly and unsuccessfully ordered senior Trump Administration officials to halt their efforts.”

As part of his new investigation, Cummings plans to send document requests to the White House, a half-dozen federal departments and agencies, and the private companies involved in promoting the nuclear proposal. He also hopes to interview the individuals who worked to advance the plan inside the White House.

Those who supported the plan to recruit U.S. companies to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East called it a “Marshall Plan for the Middle East,” and said it would help American allies develop nuclear programs to check Iran’s power in the region.

But one major proponent of the idea was no stranger to scandal. Robert “Bud” McFarlane, 81, who resigned as President Ronald Reagan’s national security advisor during the Iran-Contra scandal and later pleaded guilty in 1988 to charges involving the withholding of information from Congress, has been a global consultant in the security and energy sectors in recent years.

McFarlane is the co-founder of IP3, a company for which Flynn reportedly consulted during his time on the Trump campaign and transition.

One week after Trump’s inauguration, McFarlane sent Flynn a pair of memos to initiate action on the plan and recommended Trump appoint Barrack, who chaired Trump’s inaugural committee and has longstanding financial ties to the Middle East, as a special envoy responsible for leading the project and coordinating among different agencies.

“Tom Barrack has been thoroughly briefed on this strategy and wants to run it for you,” reads one memo McFarlane drafted for Flynn to present to Trump. According to Cummings’ report, Flynn forwarded the memos to White House staff and told them to “prep a staff packet to go to the POTUS.”

Around the same time, the House report says, Flynn aide Derek Harvey, the National Security Council’s senior director for Middle East and North African affairs, told NSC aides he had prepared at Flynn’s direction a “new strategy” for the Middle East featuring a “regional and economic energy plan” and attempted to include language about plans to build “40 nuclear power plants” in the Middle East to a briefing package for Trump ahead of a planned called with King Salman of Saudi Arabia.

But the idea raised red flags, the House report says, with some security council officials and White House legal advisers believing the plan could violate laws governing nuclear cooperation between the United States and other countries, such as a provision of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act that requires Congress review any proposal to transfer nuclear technology.

Those White House officials tried to persuade more senior advisers to abandon the idea, alleging the proposal from Flynn and his associates was a “scheme for these generals to make some money,” the House report says, and days later, the National Security Council legal adviser John Eisenberg instructed staff to stop working on the plan.

Flynn’s White House tenure proved to be brief. He was fired in February of 2017, having served in the administration for less than a month, after it was revealed that he misled then-Vice President-elect Mike Pence about his discussions with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition.

But efforts to further the plan in the White House continued even after Flynn’s departure, the report says. In March of 2017, Harvey helped draft a public statement about Trump’s meeting with Prince Mohammed bin Salman, then Saudi Arabia’s deputy crown prince, that mentioned a new U.S.-Saudi energy and technology investment program – a reference that caught some officials off guard.

“What the hell is going on?” one senior Trump official asked National Security Council staff, according to Cummings’s report.

In a meeting the next day, the report says, KT McFarland, then the National Security Council deputy director, again raised the “Middle East Marshall Plan,” and said that Trump told Barrack he could lead the effort as long as he wasn’t paid for the role.

Harvey persisted as well, the report says, directing National Security Council staff to add language referencing the plan into talking points for Trump ahead of a meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. According to the report, H.R. McMaster, who had replaced Flynn as national security advisor, objected.

“Nobody should work on this anymore,” he told his staff in late March.

Harvey, who left the White House in July of 2017 and now works for Rep. Devin Nunes, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, did not respond to requests for comment at the time of publication. But outreach to the White House about the plan continued after Harvey’s departure as well.

Fran Townsend, a homeland security advisor for President George W. Bush – who also served on IP3’s board – emailed then-White House homeland security advisor Thomas Bossert about the Middle East nuclear plan, including a white paper authored by Barrack, and a letter to the Saudi Arabian crown prince signed by advocates for the program along with leaders of six energy companies, according to documents attached to the report.

And someone else from IP3 – an individual who is not identified in the House report – reached out in April of 2017 to Vice President Mike Pence’s national security team, a contact that was reported to the National Security Council legal adviser’s office.

ABC News has contacted the White House, Harvey and Barrack for comment. ABC News has also reached out to spokespeople for former White House officials Flynn and McFarland and sought comment from several people with past or current association to the company IP3, including McFarlane, Towensend and attorneys Alan Dunn and Michael Summersgill. ABC News has also sought comment from the energy firms Westinghouse and Exelon.

None of them have agreed to speak or provided a response at the time this report was published.

Cummings staff believes the idea is still circulating within Trump administration. Just last week, President Trump met with American nuclear energy CEOs about exporting their technology to other parts of the world, though it remains unclear if a Saudi sale was discussed.

Chris Crane, the president and CEO of Exelon Corporation, the country’s largest nuclear operator, said the meeting was a conversation about the U.S. nuclear industry and the need to “maintain a leadership position” in exporting their technology.

“He was very supportive,” Crane said of Trump last week. “We're going to continue dialogue with the administration.”

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

Michał Chodyra/iStock(WASHINGTON) -- When political showman Roger Stone flew from Florida to the nation's capital last month to stand trial on charges of lying to federal investigators, he was directed to an increasingly familiar destination in the massive federal judicial complex in Washington: Courtroom 3, where Judge Amy Berman Jackson presides.

Jackson has become a low-key but recurring fixture of the special counsel investigation -- six of the 12 cases brought by Robert Mueller's team have had matters brought before her. And Courtroom 3 has been home to some of the most headline-grabbing moments in the special counsel's two-year investigation, with Jackson, a 2011 Obama appointee, serving as an imposing presence.

She has been tough on defendants. When she imposed a 30-day jail sentence on Alexander van der Zwaan, a Dutch lawyer who pleaded guilty to lying to special counsel, she said she considered letting him off with a fine, but decided against it.

"We're not talking about a traffic ticket," she said. "This is lying in a federal criminal investigation."

Earlier this month, in a closed-door hearing in the case of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Jackson dressed down defense attorney Kevin Downing for asking her to consider a comment a juror had made in a newspaper interview after his trial.

"It would be entirely inappropriate for me to rely on my understanding through the media of what took place in that trial," she said.

After a recess, it became clear the issue was not yet put to rest. Jackson had gone back to read the newspaper report anyway and wanted to let the lawyer know that he had interpreted incorrectly.

"Not that I would have relied on the newspaper anyway," she added.

The incident did not surprise defense attorneys who have come before her.

The Harvard Law graduate is, as attorney Shan Wu put it, "meticulous." Wu, who represented former Trump campaign adviser Richard Gates before he forged a cooperation deal with the special counsel, said lawyers are always at risk of running "running afoul in her meticulousness."

"If you're a defense attorney and your defenses are bull [explitive] you don't want to bring them in her courtroom," said Reid Weingarten, a defense attorney who represented Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr., whom Judge Jackson sentenced for a felony fraud count in connection to misuse of campaign funds in 2013.

But, Weingarten noted, that does not mean Jackson is "reflexively pro-government."

In the same closed-door proceeding where Downing faced scrutiny from the judge, prosecutors were repeatedly grilled by Jackson and asked to identify specific quotes from Manafort's testimony that could amount to a lie.

At one point, after prosecutor Andrew Weissmann tried to avoid providing specific examples to Jackson, she replied, "So you just don't want me to think about it, that's OK." Weissmann appeared to jump to the defensive by replying, "No. No. No. I'm going to answer your question."

The task of assigning Jackson to so many special counsel cases belongs to Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell, and it is routine procedure for chief judges to route related cases to a single courtroom, especially in instances where there might be overlapping evidence.

It is unclear how exactly Howell selected Jackson, but attorneys said she is not viewed as particularly political. She was appointed by a Democrat but was formerly married to a George W. Bush administration official. And she has seen criminal law practiced from both sides of the courtroom. She served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia before transitioning to almost 20 years of private practice as a white collar defense attorney.

Both Wu and Weingarten said Jackson is very concerned about fairness in her courtroom. Wu said this may have served as a motivating factor in her decision last year to place gag orders on Manafort and Gates.

When placing the order on Manafort and Gates, Jackson said she wanted to ensure that arguments happened in her courtroom and "not on the courthouse steps." She's presently considering a similar order for Stone, whose attorneys argued against such a move in a filing last week.

At Stone's status conference in early February, Jackson said she would weigh Stone's First Amendment rights against concerns she had about the ability to seat an impartial jury for Stone. She cautioned him against treating his pre-trial process "like a book tour."

Jackson has yet to rule on this point, but she said that, should she issue a gag order, it would be limited in scope, and that both parties could still publicly discuss "foreign relations, immigration or Tom Brady."

No trial date has yet been set for Stone, and a jury was never seated for Manafort's DC case because he pleaded guilty to the charges he faced there. But from the onset, Jackson made it clear that should there have been a trial, she wanted a tight lid on the conduct in her courtroom.

"Mr. Downing, I just want to let you know that you are an expressive human being and how you feel about what is being said in the courtroom is a big part of your demeanor and your physical demeanor," Jackson said at a closed-door hearing related to Manafort's case early last year. "That doesn't upset me particularly, but it will upset me enormously if there's a jury in the box. So just keep that in mind."

Since taking the bench, Jackson has been no stranger to high profile cases. Last year, she struck down a wrongful death suit brought against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to the Benghazi attacks. She's ruled on milestone cases related to the EPA and the Affordable Care Act. In addition to Stone, Manafort, Gates and Van der Zwaan, Jackson is also overseeing matters in the special counsel's case against Manafort's business associate, Konstantin Kilimnik, and against Russian hackers allegedly involved in the DNC breach.

During the Jesse Jackson Jr. sentencing, Weingarten said the judge seemed unaffected by the high profile nature of the proceedings.

"The courtroom was packed. The reverend was there. The Jesse Jackson family in the black community is royalty. It was a huge matter," Weingarten said. "She handled with discretion and intimacy and I was grateful for it."

That is a quality that will come in handy, he said, as more high profile cases in the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election head to Courtroom 3.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.


Subscribe To This Feed

JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg checked off another box in her recovery Tuesday, returning to the bench for oral arguments for the first time since her surgery to remove cancerous nodules from her lung.

Ginsburg missed oral arguments for the first time in 25 years when she underwent a pulmonary lobectomy in December. She returned to the court last week for the first time for the court's first February conference -- a time when justices discuss whether to take up cases.

Tuesday's appearance offered supporters further assurance that Ginsburg, 85, isn't going anywhere, a fear for liberals who feared her retirement or death would give President Donald Trump a third opportunity to add a justice to the bench.

The court said last month that Ginsburg's doctors confirmed in an exam following the surgery that she had "no evidence of any remaining disease" and that no further treatments were planned.

On Tuesday, Ginsburg's first day back for oral arguments, the court will hear a case about the U.S. Postal Service, which is caught up in a drafting problem from Congress' 2011 patent=reform bill, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

Ginsburg has developed a reputation for her toughness and strength, both because of her rigorous personal training sessions in the Supreme Court exercise room, and because of the strides she's made for gender equality in the workplace.

The star of two recent major films, Ginsburg was one of nine women in her class at Harvard Law School and the co-founder of the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU, a group she started in order to fight for equal treatment for both genders.

After she was nominated by former President Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court in 1993, she became the second woman to ever serve on the highest court in the land.

Copyright © 2019, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.