| | | | |  | | By Ankush Khardori | With help from Ari Hawkins
| 
The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol holds its last public meeting. | Pool photo by Jim Lo Scalzo | THE END OF THE BEGINNING — Even without any significant new pieces of evidence or dramatic revelations, today's final hearing from the House's January 6 select committee was an undeniably historic event. The committee officially referred Donald Trump to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, accusing him of inciting or assisting an insurrection, obstructing an official proceeding of Congress, conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiring to make a false statement. From the start, the committee had a variety of objectives, and it is not yet clear how successful they will be in achieving all of them over the long run. Four of the committee's members are not returning to Congress — two lost reelection bids and two retired — and the incoming House Republican majority is eager to turn the page on the committee's work. It is also not yet clear whether the committee managed to change public opinion in a durable way, though the broad midterm election rebuke of Trump-endorsed candidates has generated some early evidence that voters were influenced by the committee's work. The committee appears to have succeeded, however, in at least one significant way — by spurring the Justice Department to action and significantly contributing to (if not largely effectuating, by sheer political force) a remarkable shift in the political and legal dynamics surrounding the possible first-ever criminal prosecution of a former president. Most recently, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith to oversee the criminal investigations that implicate Trump pertaining to the siege of the Capitol, along with his alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents. But even before then, there were indications that the department had expanded and accelerated its work late this year. This happened perhaps most notably through a series of relatively recent grand jury subpoenas to senior Trump White House officials and a concerted effort by prosecutors (apparently successful thus far) to force those witnesses to testify, despite efforts by Trump to invoke executive privilege to block their appearances. Still, it was far from clear that the Biden Justice Department would ever take up this work in earnest, particularly given President Joe Biden's stated interest in unifying the country following his election and moving beyond the divisiveness of the Trump years. During the 2020 campaign, for instance, Biden said that it would be "a very, very unusual thing and probably not very — how can I say it? — good for democracy to be talking about prosecuting former presidents," though he said he would ultimately defer to his attorney general. Reporting by the media during the transition similarly revealed that Biden had "privately told advisers that he doesn't want his presidency to be consumed by investigations of his predecessor." Biden's appointment of Garland — the famously consensus-oriented former judge and prosecutor — as attorney general also seemed to fit this conflict-averse disposition. Meanwhile, over the course of the last year, Democrats in Congress and members of the Jan. 6 committee openly worried that the Justice Department was making a major mistake by failing to aggressively investigate Trump's conduct in the run-up to Jan. 6, particularly as more damaging information concerning the actions of Trump and his inner circle emerged thanks to public reporting by the media and disclosures from the committee's investigation. Then, of course, came the committee's summer-long series of hearings about Trump, which produced a steady stream of incriminating new details about the former president's extra-legal campaign to remain in power after his loss to Biden — including, perhaps most significantly, the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson. In the wake of her public appearance, a series of news stories reported what had long seemed apparent to many outside observers — that the department had until then been reluctant to confront Trump and his criminal exposure directly — and suggested that prosecutors were shifting and expanding their work in response to the revelations from the committee's hearings. It is possible that prosecutors were going to end up seriously investigating Trump and his inner circle regardless, at least if you take at face value the (dubious) "bottom-up" theory of the department's Jan. 6 criminal investigation. But it is also possible — and the circumstantial evidence certainly seems to suggest — that the committee succeeded in forcing the Justice Department's hand. Through its body of investigative work, through public and political pressure, the panel may have effectively compelled prosecutors to investigate Trump despite their onetime inclination to steer clear of the volatile former president. Now we are seeing the public hand-off of an extraordinary effort that, at least if the members of the Jan. 6 committee have their way, could end up with Trump behind bars. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Contact tonight's author at ankush.khardori@gmail.com. We're compiling a list of the year's biggest stories for a year-end issue. Tell us what you think were the most important or interesting news stories of 2022 — and why. Let us know if we can include your name and hometown. Submit a response to nightly@politico.com for a chance to be featured in the newsletter later this week.
| | | | A NEW POLITICO PODCAST: POLITICO Tech is an authoritative insider briefing on the politics and policy of technology. From crypto and the metaverse to cybersecurity and AI, we explore the who, what and how of policy shaping future industries. We're kicking off with a series exploring darknet marketplaces, the virtual platforms that enable actors from all corners of the online world to traffic illicit goods. As malware and cybercrime attacks become increasingly frequent, regulators and law enforcement agencies work different angles to shut these platforms down, but new, often more unassailable marketplaces pop up. SUBSCRIBE AND START LISTENING TODAY. | | | | | | | | FABRICATED FRESHMAN — Rep.-elect George Santos' (R-N.Y.) past may be largely fabricated, according to Grace Ashford and Michael Gold of The New York Times. Ashford and Gold report that Santos, who just won a competitive election on Long Island claiming to be the "full embodiment of the American dream," mischaracterized or outright lied about significant details about his past. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, two places he claimed to have worked, have zero record of his employment. Baruch College, where Santos says he graduated from in 2010, didn't find any records of a George Santos graduating that year. Santos during the campaign also discussed a tax-exempt, non-profit animal rescue group called Friends of Pets United — the IRS has no records of that charity. New details also emerged in the Times report about Santos admitting to check fraud in Brazil — stealing a checkbook and then using it. That event occurred during the same period of time that Santos would have been at Baruch had he actually graduated in 2010. Santos also claimed that he and his family owned 13 properties, and weren't being paid rent during the New York Covid rent freeze. There's no record of that, though there are court records of Santos himself being evicted from properties in 2015 and 2017. LET'S GET MOVING — The incoming House Republican chairs of 14 committees are urging their conference to back Kevin McCarthy's bid for speaker, even as the California Republican has struggled to tamp down a small bloc of "never Kevin" rebels, write Anthony Adragna and Olivia Beavers. "We urge our colleagues — let us not squander this majority before we even take back the gavels. Time is of the essence, and the American people want us to get to work now," the chairs wrote in a letter circulated to colleagues. "Majorities are earned, never given — and the American people will remember how we choose to begin ours." These chairs have a personal stake in the outcome of the Jan. 3 vote, of course. A drawn-out battle will delay the staffing up and launch of panels like theirs.
| | | | 
Former film producer Harvey Weinstein appears in court on Oct. 4, 2022 in Los Angeles, Calif. | Pool photo by Etienne Laurent | — Los Angeles jury finds Harvey Weinstein guilty of rape: A Los Angeles jury reached a verdict today on Harvey Weinstein's sexual assault trial. The former film producer was found guilty on all counts of rape and sexual assault for Jane Doe 1, hung on all counts for Jane Doe 2 and Jennifer Newsom, and acquitted of sexual battery by restraint for Jane Doe 3. Weinstein had pleaded not guilty to all seven charges filed against him. In November 2020, he faced similar charges in New York and was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Weinstein will be sentenced in the Los Angeles case early next year, where he faces up to 24 years in prison. — Supreme Court sets February date for arguments on Biden's student debt relief: The Supreme Court has set a February date to hear two cases challenging the legality of Biden's student debt relief program. The court announced today that justices would hear oral arguments in both cases on Feb. 28. The first case involves a legal challenge from six Republican-led states, led by the attorneys general of Nebraska and Missouri. The second is a lawsuit brought by a conservative group, the Job Creators Network Foundation, on behalf of two Texas borrowers who were partially or fully excluded from Biden's relief program. — McDaniel faces furious campaign from right in race for RNC chair: Ronna McDaniel's path to another two-year term leading the Republican National Committee faces a major obstacle: Some of the loudest voices in the conservative movement are calling for her to go. As she seeks a rare fourth term as RNC chair, McDaniel is facing fierce criticism from a horde of right-wing media figures who reach millions of GOP faithful. Now, McDaniel has to hold down her support on the committee for five weeks as a grassroots army rages against her. — GOP-led states ask Supreme Court to keep Title 42 in place: A group of Republican-led states filed an emergency application today with the Supreme Court as part of a last-ditch effort to halt the lifting of Title 42, the federal order blocking millions of migrants from entering the U.S. on public health grounds. The move to seek relief from the high court comes after a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday rejected the states' bid to suspend the policy's expected termination. The Title 42 restriction is scheduled to wind down Wednesday, following a lower-court ruling that held the policy illegal.
| | | FRANK EXCHANGE — Twitter's new owner Elon Musk has been invited to testify in the European Parliament, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO, writes Clothilde Goujard. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola sent a letter today to the tech billionaire asking him to come to Brussels for a "frank exchange in public" with lawmakers. Metsola had agreed in November to invite Musk after a request from liberal lawmakers, as first reported by POLITICO. She wrote she was "confident" that Musk would accept the invitation. The move comes after a string of chaotic and controversial measures — including mass layoffs, the suspension of journalists and changes to the platforms' rules — have prompted alarm in Europe. The platform is also struggling to stem disinformation and hateful content. "Platforms can't keep flip-flopping on policies," European Commissioner Thierry Breton tweeted today. "I've instructed the European Commission teams to enforce [the EU's content law, the Digital Services Act] no later than: 1 September 2023."
| | | | POLITICO AT CES 2023 : We are bringing a special edition of our Digital Future Daily newsletter to Las Vegas to cover CES 2023. The newsletter will take you inside the largest and most influential technology event on the planet, featuring every major and emerging industry in the technology ecosystem gathered in one place. The newsletter runs from Jan. 5-7 and will focus on the public policy related aspects of the event. Sign up today to receive exclusive coverage of CES 2023. | | | | | | | | | | $7.5 billion The amount of money that FIFA earned in revenue thanks to the Qatar World Cup, a record and $1 billion more than international soccer's governing body earned during the 2018 World Cup in Russia. The event concluded Sunday with Argentina prevailing over France in a thrilling final, 4-2 on penalty kicks after extra time ended in a 3-3 tie. | | | | | RETHINKING ALZHEIMER'S — For decades, scientists thought that sticky blobs of proteins were the root of the cause of the most common form of dementia. But the results of a clinical trial in September on Alzheimer's patients has the medical and scientific community rethinking their approach. The experimental drug "lecanemab" saw early stage cognitive decline retreat by 27 percent, a rare victory in a field of study marred with disappointments. The studies are causing some researchers to rethink their approach on conquering the affliction. Read Yasemin Saplakoglu's full investigation in Quanta magazine.
| | | | 
Elon Musk suspended and then reinstated multiple prominent journalists from Twitter last week after he accused them of "doxing" him. | Miguel Roberts/The Brownsville Herald via AP Photo | DOX-ATION NATION — Twitter's suspension of the account @ElonJet last week kicked off a storm of controversy that ultimately led to the banning and eventual reinstatement on the platform of more than half a dozen reporters at prominent publications. Elon Musk, Twitter's chief executive, accused reporters of "doxing" his location after some quote-tweeted the banned account, which used public data to track the flight information of his private jet. As the dust settles on what's been called the "Thursday Night Massacre," the episode underscores ongoing disagreements over what exactly constitutes "doxing," given Musk's vow to prioritize untethered speech on the social media platform. Part of the problem is that the term has no strict legal definition; the Oxford dictionary describes it as: "the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent." Nightly's Ari Hawkins spoke to two cybersecurity experts to cut through the confusion surrounding the term: Joseph Steinberg, who's chronicled the cybersecurity space for more than two decades and Greg Gogolin, a director of data analysis at Ferris State University who has worked with the Michigan state attorney general to investigate online threats. This interview has been edited. Doxing is something that's talked about constantly in the digital era. How has the term changed over time? Gogolin: Doxing, when it emerged as a term in the 1990s, referred to things like sophisticated campaigns and the leakage of classified documents. Like the Nuremberg Files, when an anti-abortion fanatic doxed the home addresses of providers with the intention to cause them harm. Online, and in popular consciousness, nowadays what people can refer to [as doxing] has a much wider breadth and a much looser definition. The term is used to include everything from investigative leaks to posts on social media that include public information. Steinberg: Elon Musk's comments regarding the disclosure of the location of his private jet are a prime example of the ambiguous nature of the term "doxing." While people think of it as referring to the sharing to the public of private information about a would-be victim, that definition is inaccurate and misleading. As in the case of Musk's plane, doxing often refers to the sharing en masse of data that was never officially private, but which, in eras prior to our own, remained private due to practical realities. 50 years ago, for example, if the typical American saw a celebrity getting off their plane, the viewer had no way to let the rest of the world know. How does the way doxing is talked about online relate to how it is spoken about in a legal context in the U.S.? When is doxing prosecutable? Gogolin: When the information being dispensed is in the public domain the practice is typically not illegal. And in many cases, local laws lack the ability to adequately pursue investigations. Even when instances of doxing result in large-scale real-life harassment and stalking. Generally, there is inconsistent jurisdiction across states on how to react when it comes to online harassment. From my time working with the [district attorney] in Michigan, we saw no more than a couple state or local investigators working on a doxing case, and the system of laws used is antiquated, written before the age of social media. Steinberg: Doxing may or may not be a crime depending on multiple factors. In my home state of New Jersey, for example, it is against the law to post online the home address of a judge. That said, the bigger picture issue is not how to apply our current laws – but, rather, what do we, as a society, want our privacy laws to be. We must decide if we are going to preserve the level of privacy that we enjoyed in years past when many types of information that were public de jure were, in fact, private de facto – or, if we will let the existing laws remain in place and, thereby, let technological advances render fully public all information that is not yet legally protected. Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here. | | | | Follow us on Twitter | | | | Follow us | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment