January 18, 2024

Congress

The Hill: Jordan seeks answers from former Treasury official over flagged ‘MAGA’ transactions

By Lauren Sforza

.....Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is requesting a transcribed interview with a former Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) official for allegedly flagging consumer transactions that had the phrases “TRUMP” or “MAGA” in them.

On behalf of the Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, Jordan sent a letter requesting testimony to Noah Bishoff, the former director of an office in the Strategic Operations Division of FinCEN, which is part of the Treasury Department.

Jordan said the committee had obtained documents showing that FinCEN outlined “typologies” of persons of interest in materials distributed to financial institutions. He said these materials included “suggested search terms and Merchant Category Codes (MCCs) for identifying transactions on behalf of federal law enforcement” after Jan. 6, 2021.

“These materials included a document recommending the use of generic terms like ‘TRUMP’ and ‘MAGA’ to ‘search Zelle payment messages’ as well as a ‘prior FinCEN analysis’ of ‘Lone Actor/Homegrown Violent Extremism Indicators,” the letter states.

Washington Times: House Democrats seek to co-opt foreign influence concerns to target American donors

By Heather Lauer

.....At a hearing exploring alleged foreign influence in U.S. politics, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight focused instead on attacking First Amendment protections for American citizens.

“It’s been over 13 years since the Supreme Court unleashed a tidal wave of dark money into politics through the disastrous Citizens United decision,” said ranking member Bill Pascrell. “We’ve seen political 501(c)(4)s pour over a billion dollars into federal elections without any requirement to disclose the funding source.”

That’s for good reason. Americans have a constitutional right to support nonprofit causes without having their identities exposed. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the privacy of donors is critical to free speech. Otherwise, government officials and extremists could silence their critics through harassment and intimidation.

DOJ

Wall Street Journal: IRS Leaker Sought Job With Aim of Releasing Trump Tax Returns, DOJ Says

By Richard Rubin

.....From 2008 to 2013, Charles Littlejohn worked intermittently for Booz Allen Hamilton, with a primary focus on the consulting firm’s contracts with the Internal Revenue Service. 

When he returned to the firm in 2017, he arrived with a plan, federal prosecutors say: to access and disclose the tax returns of the sitting president, Donald Trump, whom he considered a threat to democracy.

Federal prosecutors underscored that purported motivation Tuesday as they recommended that Littlejohn receive a five-year prison sentence for leaking Trump’s tax returns and those of thousands of wealthy Americans. Such a sentence is the maximum Littlejohn could face after pleading guilty last year to a single count of unauthorized disclosure of tax information.

In a 15-page court filing, federal prosecutors said Littlejohn applied to Booz Allen Hamilton in 2017 with the “intention of accessing and disclosing tax returns.” 

After being hired, Littlejohn then “weaponized his access to unmasked taxpayer data to further his own personal, political agenda, believing that he was above the law,” prosecutors said.

Washington Post: No Labels asks Justice Department to investigate its opponents’ efforts

By Michael Scherer

.....The leaders of No Labels, a group preparing a potential independent presidential ticket, have asked the Justice Department to investigate potential criminal charges against a range of Democratic-leaning groups and activists who have been opposing their effort.

The group, in a Jan. 11 letter signed by former senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), former North Carolina governor Pat McCrory (R) and others, argues that a public and private pressure campaign to discourage donations to No Labels and support for the ticket goes beyond legally protected political speech.

“It’s one thing to oppose candidates who are running; it’s another to use intimidation tactics to prevent them from even getting in front of the voters,” the letter reads in part.

Supreme Court

Washington Post (Technology 202): The Supreme Court has entered the AI chat

By Cristiano Lima-Strong

.....While the debate over new potential rules for artificial intelligence is just starting to gain steam in Congress, the Supreme Court this week signaled that it’s already looking ahead to the challenges that regulating the technology may pose for the judicial system. 

Justices repeatedly raised the issue during oral arguments Wednesday in Relentless v. Department of Commerce, a major case that could have sweeping implications for how much leeway agencies have to interpret their authority on an array of fronts.

The Courts

Courthouse News: Texas book ratings law halted

.....The Fifth Circuit affirmed a Texas federal court’s injunction against a new Texas law, the READER Act, which would have compelled booksellers to issue sexual content ratings for all books they have ever sold or will sell to public schools. The booksellers are likely to win on their claims that the mandate violates the First Amendment’s barrier against compelled speech, the panel ruled.

Carolina Journal: Earls drops lawsuit against judicial standards group

.....State Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls is dropping her federal lawsuit against the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission. Earls indicated Wednesday the commission had dismissed a complaint against her that could have led to discipline from her colleagues.

Paperwork filed Wednesday in both US District Court and the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the voluntary dismissal of Earls’ case. She will not seek legal fees from the commission.

Because the voluntary dismissal is described as being “without prejudice,” Earls could refile her complaint at a later date.

“I continue to believe that the First Amendment protects my ability to speak about matters of racial equity in the legal system,” Earls said in a statement. “However, I see no need to continue the litigation since the Commission has dismissed the complaint against me and at this time I no longer face being disciplined by the Court. I am enormously grateful to all the individuals and organizations, in North Carolina and nationally, who supported me while this case was pending.”

Reason: Want to Use Social Media? Utah Wants You to Hand Over Your ID.

By Emma Camp

.....Last week, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment nonprofit, launched a lawsuit against the state of Utah, challenging a new state law requiring invasive age verification for social media users.