US DOJ to open grand jury probe into Obama officials, source says
The Justice Department said late last month it was forming a strike force to assess claims made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about "alleged weaponization of the U.S. intelligence community."
Republican U.S. President Donald Trump has leaped on comments from Gabbard in which she threatened to refer Obama administration officials to the Justice Department for prosecution over an intelligence assessment of Russian interference.
Fox News first reported that Bondi personally ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury, which could consider an indictment if the Justice Department pursued a criminal case. The report cited a letter from Bondi and a source. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.
Last month, Trump accused Obama of treason, alleging, without providing evidence, that the Democrat led an effort to falsely tie him to Russia and undermine his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump won the 2016 election against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
A spokesperson for Obama had denounced Trump's claims, saying "these bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction."
Gabbard had declassified documents and said the information she released showed a "treasonous conspiracy" in 2016 by top Obama officials to undermine Trump, claims that Democrats called false and politically motivated.
An assessment by the U.S. intelligence community published in January 2017 concluded that Russia, using social media disinformation, hacking, and Russian bot farms, sought to damage Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and bolster Trump, who won that election.
The assessment determined the actual impact was likely limited and showed no evidence that Moscow's efforts actually changed voting outcomes. Russia has denied it attempted to interfere in U.S. elections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
a few seconds ago
- The Guardian
The one thing Donald Trump isn't saying about tariffs
Donald Trump's words and actions rarely align perfectly. If you watch carefully, what he doesn't say can be just as telling as what he does. 'Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods,' he told the nation ahead of his re-election. The US president declared on 2 April would 'forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn', only to pause tariffs a week later. He promised peace in Ukraine on day one of his presidency, only to later clarify this was 'said in jest'; and has claimed very few people can beat him at golf, only for footage from Scotland to raise questions over just how honest that round might be. As a real estate mogul, reality TV star and political campaigner, Trump learned to bend narrative to his will, even if it meant straying from reality. As president, this often leaves a gap between what he says and what he does. In many cases, the administration's actions are more important to follow than the firehose of words. If you were, say, a US business buying coffee from Brazil, you might have rushed to import it last week after Trump insisted 1 August was the cast-iron deadline for new tariffs. 'It stands strong, and will not be extended,' he wrote on Wednesday – hours before signing an executive order that said new steep tariffs on the country would come into force on 8 August, after all. And if you're a US consumer, you might reasonably ask how inflation can be 'dead', as the White House has claimed, if you're still shelling out more on groceries each month. The president has an awful lot to say about tariffs. They will, he argues, raise 'trillions' of dollars for the US federal government; eliminate trade deficits with other countries; and even punish Brazil for putting his ally, the former president Jair Bolsonaro, on trial for allegedly seeking to seize power after losing the 2022 presidential election. The list goes on. But what about what the president doesn't say? Trump was re-elected last November after repeatedly pledging to rapidly bring down prices for Americans. This assurance formed a central pillar of his election campaign – a regular refrain in rallies, interviews and debates – as millions found it harder to make ends meet after years of inflation. Every policy comes at a cost. Every tax must be paid by someone, somewhere. For consumers, The Budget Lab at Yale estimates the short-term price impact of Trump's tariff changes is equivalent to an average per household income loss of $2,400. What Trump doesn't really talk about the impact of his aggressive tariff agenda on US is prices. One of the few times he has acknowledged it might actually exacerbate inflation led to a bizarre tangent about dolls back in May. Acknowledging that tariffs might cause price rises, Trump suggested American children might have to settle for having 'two dolls instead of 30 dolls'. Back then, Joe Biden was still to blame for any signs of strife in the economy, according to Trump. Now, he argues almost daily Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell is responsible. The biggest indication yet that the US economy is creaking on Trump's watch came on Friday, when official data revealed the labor market had stalled this summer. He unceremoniously fired the veteran official in charge of the statistics – and alleged, without evidence, that the numbers had been rigged. With higher US tariffs now in place on a string of countries, the president and his administration will inevitably say a lot about the benefits of his economic strategy. They are already trying to stifle evidence of drawbacks. They might even raise the prospect of a handout – pitched as a sign of this policy's success, rather than a concession that many Americans are still hard up. But if you're running a small business reliant on trade, or walking into the grocery store on a budget, reality supersedes rhetoric. Words don't pay the bills.
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Gianni Infantino responds after female referee receives death threats
Fifa president Gianni Infantino expressed support for referee Katia Itzel Garcia and the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) after the official revealed she was subjected to online abuse following a Leagues Cup match. Garcia, who has officiated in other men's competitions including Liga MX, the Gold Cup and the Olympic Games, reported receiving death threats after refereeing the Leagues Cup clash between FC Cincinnati and Monterrey on Thursday. Her decision to award a goal to the MLS side that appeared to be offside fuelled outrage among Monterrey fans after Cincinnati went on to win 3-2. "I am dismayed and saddened by the threats against referee Katia Itzel following her performance in the Leagues Cup first round matches between Monterrey and Cincinnati," Infantino wrote on his Instagram account on Monday. "There is no place in football and society for abuse, discrimination and violence of any kind. "At Fifa, we stand in solidarity with the FMF and Concacaf in condemning the actions of those who make these unacceptable threats. We offer our unconditional support in holding those responsible to account." The FMF said in a statement on Saturday that it "will advise and accompany Garcia in the complaint process before the corresponding authorities"
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
What is political gerrymandering and is it legal?
The recent departure of Democratic lawmakers from Texas, a strategic move to prevent the Republican-led Legislature from redrawing the state's congressional districts, highlights the enduring practice of gerrymandering in American politics. Coined over two centuries ago, the term "gerrymander" emerged in the US as a pejorative descriptor for the political manipulation inherent in legislative map-making. Its continued relevance is a testament to the fiercely competitive nature of American politics, where such tactics remain prevalent. Who is responsible for gerrymandering? In many states, like Texas, the state legislature is responsible for drawing congressional districts, subject to the approval or veto of the governor. District maps must be redrawn every 10 years, after each census, to balance the population in districts. But in some states, nothing prevents legislatures from conducting redistricting more often. In an effort to limit gerrymandering, some states have entrusted redistricting to special commissions composed of citizens or bipartisan panels of politicians. Democratic officials in some states with commissions are now talking of trying to sidestep them to counter Republican redistricting in Texas. How does a gerrymander work? If a political party controls both the legislature and governor's office — or has such a large legislative majority that it can override vetoes — it can effectively draw districts to its advantage. One common method of gerrymandering is for a majority party to draw maps that pack voters who support the opposing party into a few districts, thus allowing the majority party to win a greater number of surrounding districts. Another common method is for the majority party to dilute the power of an opposing party's voters by spreading them among multiple districts. Why is it called gerrymandering? The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing state Senate districts to benefit the Democratic-Republican Party. Some thought an oddly shaped district looked like a salamander. A newspaper illustration dubbed it 'The Gerry-mander' — a term that later came to describe any district drawn for political advantage. Gerry lost re-election as governor in 1812 but won election that same year as vice president with President James Madison. Is political gerrymandering illegal? Not under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: 'The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.' The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims could continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. But some state courts, including North Carolina's highest court, have ruled that they also have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering claims. Are there any limits on redistricting? Yes. Though it's difficult to challenge legislative districts on political grounds, the Supreme Court has upheld challenges on racial grounds. In a 2023 case from Alabama, the high court said the congressional districts drawn by the state's Republican-led Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black residents. The court let a similar claim proceed in Louisiana. Both states subsequently redrew their districts. What does data show about gerrymandering? Statisticians and political scientists have developed a variety of ways to try to quantify the partisan advantage that may be attributable to gerrymandering. Republicans, who control redistricting in more states than Democrats, used the 2010 census data to create a strong gerrymander. An Associated Press analysis of that decade's redistricting found that Republicans enjoyed a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years. But Democrats responded to match Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The adoption of redistricting commissions also limited gerrymandering in some states. An AP analysis of the 2022 elections — the first under new maps — found that Republicans won just one more U.S. House seat than would have been expected based on the average share of the vote they received nationwide. That was one of the most politically balanced outcomes in years.
