N.J. federal judges sideline Alina Habba as top prosecutor, DOJ ousts her replacement
President Trump installed Habba, who had served as his personal attorney, on March 24 in an interim capacity. An appointee can lead a U.S. attorney's office for up to 120 days pending Senate confirmation. Habba was not formally nominated for the role until July 1 and has not been confirmed.
The state's district judges voted to replace her. Chief Judge Renée Bumb wrote in an order Tuesday that they appointed Habba's first assistant, longtime prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace, to the role.
Hours later, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department had "removed" Grace, accusing "rogue judges" of "threatening" the president's constitutional powers.
A Justice Department official told CBS News that Grace is no longer with the department.
New Jersey Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both Democrats, condemned Grace's removal.
"The firing of a career public servant, lawfully appointed by the court, is another blatant attempt to intimidate anyone that doesn't agree with them and undermine judicial independence," the two senators wrote in a joint statement.
CBS News has reached out to Grace for comment.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who in social media posts on Sunday and Monday urged the judges to keep Habba in the role, blasted their decision Tuesday.
Blanche accused the judges of "trying to force out" Habba, and serving "a left-wing agenda, not the rule of law."
"When judges act like activists, they undermine confidence in our justice system. Alina is President Trump's choice to lead—and no partisan bench can override that," Blanche wrote.
Habba did not immediately reply to a request for comment by CBS News.
Habba faced an uphill battle to secure Senate confirmation, which was opposed by the state's two Democratic senators.
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey praised the judges' decision in a social media post Tuesday, noting that Grace has been a federal prosecutor in the state since 2016.
"The people of New Jersey deserve a United States Attorney who will enforce the law without fear or favor, always in pursuit of the public interest and guided by the principles of impartiality and fairness," Booker wrote.
Habba's time in office was marked by clashes with Democrats. Her office charged Newark Mayor Ras Baraka with criminal trespassing and U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver with assault after a May protest at an immigration facility.
The charges against Baraka were dropped, and McIver entered a not guilty plea.
Habba was previously counselor to the president early in his second term. For several years prior, she was a lead attorney on many of his most high-profile civil cases, including a New York state fraud case and a defamation case involving the writer E. Jean Carroll. A judge and a jury in those cases found Mr. Trump liable for about half a billion dollars in damages and disgorgement.
Ozzy Osbourne, heavy metal pioneer, dies at age 76
Extended interview: Jake Wesley Rogers on faith, identity and his debut album
Video shows conditions inside New York City immigrant detention facility
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class
There are many questions that don't have simple answers, either because they're too complex or they're hypothetical. One such question is what it might mean for billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as the upper middle class, whose income starts, on average, at around $168,000, depending on where you live. Find Out: Read Next: ChatGPT may not be an oracle, but it can analyze information and offer trends and patterns, so I asked it what would happen if billionaires were required to pay anywhere near as much as the upper middle class. Here's what it said. A Fatter Government Larder For starters, ChatGPT said that if billionaires paid taxes like the upper middle class, the government would bring in a lot more money — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars more every year. 'That's because most billionaires don't make their money from salaries like upper-middle-class workers do. Instead, they grow their wealth through investments–stocks, real estate, and businesses–which are often taxed at much lower rates or not taxed at all until the assets are sold,' ChatGPT told me. Billionaire income is largely derived from capital appreciation, not wages. In other words, they make money on their money through interest. And as of yet, the U.S. tax code doesn't tax 'unrealized capital gains' so until you sell your assets, you could amass millions in appreciation and not pay a dime on it, ChatGPT shared. Learn More: What Do Billionaires Pay in Taxes? Right now, many billionaires pay an effective tax rate of around 8% or less, thanks to loopholes and tax strategies. Meanwhile, upper-middle-class households earning, say, $250,000 might pay around 20% to 24% of their income in taxes. (Keep in mind that the government doesn't apply one tax bracket to all income. You pay tax in layers, according to the IRS. As your income goes up, the tax rate on the next layer of income is higher. So you pay 12% on the first $47,150, then 22% on $47,151 to $100,525 and so on). So, if billionaires were taxed at the same rate as those upper-middle-class wage earners, 'it would level the playing field–and raise a ton of revenue that could be used for things like infrastructure, education or healthcare,' ChatGPT said. The Impact on Wealth Equality I wondered if taxing billionaires could have any kind of impact on wealth equality, as well. While it wouldn't put more money in other people's pockets, 'it could increase trust in the tax system, showing that the wealthiest aren't playing by a different set of rules,' ChatGPT said. It would also help curb 'the accumulation of dynastic wealth,' where the richest families essentially hoard wealth for generations without contributing proportionally to the system. But it's not a magic bullet. 'Wealth inequality is rooted in more than just taxes–wages, education access, housing costs, and corporate ownership all play a role,' ChatGPT said. Billionaires paying taxes doesn't stop them from being billionaires, either, it pointed out. Taxing Billionaires Is Not That Simple While in theory billionaires paying higher taxes 'would shift a much bigger share of the tax burden onto the very wealthy,' ChatGPT wrote, billionaires are not as liquid as they may seem. 'A lot of billionaire wealth is tied up in things like stocks they don't sell, so taxing that would require big changes to how the tax code works.' Also, billionaires are good at finding loopholes and account strategies — it might be hard to enforce. What's a Good Middle Ground? We don't live in a black and white world, however. There's got to be a middle ground, so I asked ChatGPT if there is a way to tax billionaires more, even if it's not quite how the upper middle class are taxed. A likely compromise would come from a policy decision, which isn't likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill only offered more tax breaks to the wealthiest. However, policy proposals that have been floated, include: A minimum tax on billionaires where they might pay around 20% of their overall income Limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes that allow them to significantly reduce taxable income Tax unrealized gains (those assets that have only earned but not yet been sold), gradually. ChatGPT agreed that billionaires could pay more than they currently do, even if they don't pay exactly what upper-middle-class workers pay in percentage terms. 'The key is to design policies that are fair, enforceable, and politically feasible.' I asked how realistic such policy proposals are, and ChatGPT told me what I already knew: They're 'moderately realistic' but only with the 'right political alignment.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New poll finds 96% Idaho voters say public lands should remain in public hands
More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land, including this high altitude lake at the base of Thompson Peak in the Sawtooth Wilderness. (Photo by Clark Corbin/Idaho Capital Sun) Ninety-six percent of all registered voters in Idaho believe that public lands should remain in public hands, according to a new poll paid for by Conservation Voters for Idaho. The poll was conducted in the aftermath of a federal proposal from U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to make millions of acres of public land in the U.S., including in Idaho, available to be sold off. The poll specifically asked Idaho voters questions about Idaho public lands and who they support in Idaho's 2026 U.S. Senate race. Alexis Pickering, executive director of Conservation Voters for Idaho, said she has never in her career seen Idahoans from all sides of the political spectrum unite behind a single issue like they have behind public lands this year. 'It really is clear that voters are unified in keeping public lands in public hands,' Pickering said in a phone interview Wednesday. 'It demonstrates that Idaho voters are very cognizant of this fight right now,' Pickering said. 'They are very engaged, and they are not going to sit this out.' More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land of some form. The polling firm Change Research conducted the poll among 1,027 registered Idaho voters from July 15-17. The margin of error was 3.2%, according to Change Research. One poll question asked voters, 'Did you support or oppose the amendment to sell off over 3 million acres of public land across 11 Western states, including Idaho?' – with 87% of respondents saying they opposed it. Battles over public lands loom even after sell-off proposal fails Another poll question asked voters which statement came closest to their opinion: Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should remain public and be protected so that everyone can keep enjoying them. Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should be made available for purchase and private ownership. Ninety-six percent of Idaho registered voters said public lands should remain public, including 97% of registered Democrats and 95% of registered Republicans, the poll found. Lee withdrew his amendment to sell public lands after a public backlash and three of Idaho's four members of Congress provided public opposition from within the Republican Party to selling public lands. Even though the public lands amendment was withdrawn, Pickering said the issue isn't going away. She said Conservation Voters for Idaho plans to highlight public lands as a central issue and continue to hold elected officials accountable for keeping public lands public. Pickering also said the public is deeply invested in the issue and knows Lee could file another proposal to sell public lands. She compared the proposal to sell public lands to waking a sleeping bear. 'Now that they have woken the bear, it will be really hard to get that bear back in hibernation mode,' Pickering said. Three of Idaho's four members of Congress, U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, all R-Idaho, provided public Republican opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, the Sun previously reported. On June 20, Risch and Crapo, both announced they were opposed to the provision in the budget reconciliation process to sell off public lands. Simpson co-sponsored the Public Lands in Public Hands Act. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, opposed the Public Lands in Public Hands Act, the Utah News Dispatch reported. In a phone interview with the Idaho Capital Sun earlier this month, Fulcher said, 'public land should remain public, but the control, management should be local stakeholders, not the federal government.' Polling data shows that Risch received a 10% bump in support among all registered voters after they learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, up from 41% to 51%. Among registered Republican voters only, Risch's support increased from 60% to 72% after voters learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands. The poll only asked voters about Risch's upcoming U.S. Senate race, where he faces re-election in 2026. The poll did not ask about Crapo, Simpson or Fulcher, Pickering said. Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@ Solve the daily Crossword
Fox News
24 minutes ago
- Fox News
Rep Nancy Mace says a decision on potential gubernatorial campaign will be made in next couple of days
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., said she will decide whether to run for governor of South Carolina in the coming days on 'Fox Report.'
