Supervisor in DC federal prosecutors’ office told to resign after dispute over investigation

posted in: News | 0

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — A top supervisor in the federal prosecutors’ office in Washington said she was forced to resign following a dispute with her boss over a directive that she scrutinize the awarding of a government contract during the Biden administration, according to a letter reviewed by The Associated Press.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Judge declines to immediately block Elon Musk or DOGE from federal data or layoffs

National Politics |


Judge questions motives for Trump’s order banning transgender troops

National Politics |


New York’s governor meets top political leaders as she weighs removing Mayor Eric Adams from office

National Politics |


Republican states claim zero abortions. A red-state doctor calls that ‘ludicrous’

National Politics |


White House says Elon Musk is not in charge at DOGE, but is advising the president

Denise Cheung, a longtime Justice Department official who led the office’s criminal division, wrote in a resignation letter that interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin ordered her to seek a freeze on assets related to the contract and to issue grand jury subpoenas despite her believing there was an insufficient basis for doing so.

Cheung said Martin asked for her resignation after she resisted his demand to tell a bank not to release any funds from certain accounts because of a criminal investigation. Cheung said she “lacked the legal authority to issue such a letter” to the bank, telling Martin that the “quantum of evidence did not support that action.”

Cheung’s letter recapping her dispute with Martin did not describe the nature of the contract or which agency was involved. A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment, and a spokesperson for the Justice Department said failing to follow orders “is not an act of heroism.”

The conflict was the latest to roil the Justice Department and to result in the resignation of a career official who was unwilling to follow a Trump administration mandate.

Cheung did not explain the reason for her departure in an email to her colleagues Tuesday morning, but encouraged them to continue to fulfill their commitment to “pursuing justice without fear or prejudice.”

“I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, and I have executed this duty faithfully during my tenure, which has spanned through numerous Administrations,” Cheung wrote in the email reviewed by The Associated Press. “All that we do is rooted in following the facts and the law and complying with our moral, ethical and legal obligations.”

Cheung’s resignation comes a day after President Donald Trump said he would nominate Martin to serve as D.C.’s U.S. attorney on a permanent basis. Martin, who has advocated for Jan. 6 rioters and backed Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, has been leading the office as interim U.S. attorney since last month.

Martin tapped Cheung last month to conduct an internal review of the prosecutor’s use of a felony charge brought against hundreds of Capitol rioters. Calling the use of the charge “a great failure of our office,” Martin ordered attorneys to hand over to Cheung and another supervisor all relevant “files, documents, notes, emails and other information” and directed the supervisors to prepare a report on their findings.

It’s the latest departure from a Justice Department that has been rocked by firings, resignations and forced transfers since Trump’s inauguration in late January.

Last week, Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, Danielle Sassoon, resigned in protest following a directive from Emil Bove, the Justice Department’s acting No. 2 official, to dismiss corruption charges against former New York Mayor Adams. Several high-ranking officials who oversaw the Justice Department’s public integrity section followed Sassoon in resigning after Bove asked the unit to take over the case.

Former Gopher, Olympian Dick Meredith remembered for skating and success

posted in: Politics | 0

The last time Murray Williamson talked with long-time friend Dick Meredith, the two former Gophers and Olympic standouts got into a fierce but friendly debate.

“He and I were at Willard Ikola’s funeral, and we got into a big argument about who was tallest,” joked Williamson. Both he and Meredith are listed at 5-foot-7 in the hockey databases, although that might be a bit generous for both men.

“(John) Mayasich agreed to be the referee, and he declared it a tie,” Williamson said, with a chuckle. “Which is a lie, because I was standing on my toes.”

Meredith, who was a prep standout at Minneapolis Southwest, a star for the Gophers in the 1950s, and earned Olympic silver (in 1956) and gold (in 1960) medals, died on Feb. 6 after a brief illness. He was 92 years old.

Known more for his skating than his size, Meredith was a puck-mover on the Gophers’ NCAA runner-up teams in 1953 and 1954, then played for Team USA in 1956 when the Americans finished as runners-up at the Winter Olympics in Cortina, Italy.

Four years later, Meredith earned a roster spot for coach Jack Riley on the American team that became known as the “Forgotten Miracle” after they won the nation’s first Olympic hockey gold in Squaw Valley, Calif.

“As a person, there was none better,” said Bill Christian, Meredith’s teammate on the 1960 team. “What a great skater. He played on a wing with me in 1958 (on the U.S. National team) and we had a great time.”

After hockey, Meredith didn’t venture far from the rink, going to work for original Minnesota North Stars owner Walter Bush Jr. in a variety of business roles until his retirement. Christian recalled organizing a golf tournament to raise money for youth hockey in the 1980s, and Meredith’s tireless volunteer work to get North Stars players and other celebrities to attend.

Meredith had seen Williamson and several friends from the 1960 Olympic team just days before his death at the funeral for Ikola, the goalie in 1960, who was also 92 and died in January.

Related Articles

College Sports |


Men’s hockey: Extra time unkind again as Gophers tie at Michigan, fall in shootout

College Sports |


Men’s hockey: Gophers fall to Michigan in OT

College Sports |


Men’s college hockey: Portal power for Gophers as newcomers lead sweep of Wisconsin

College Sports |


Men’s hockey: Gophers get five unanswered goals to beat Wisconsin 5-2

College Sports |


Gophers look to get off recent rollercoaster vs. Wisconsin

Judge declines to immediately block Elon Musk or DOGE from federal data or layoffs

posted in: All news | 0

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge declined Tuesday to immediately block billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from accessing government data systems or participating in worker layoffs.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Judge questions motives for Trump’s order banning transgender troops

National Politics |


New York’s governor meets top political leaders as she weighs removing Mayor Eric Adams from office

National Politics |


Republican states claim zero abortions. A red-state doctor calls that ‘ludicrous’

National Politics |


White House says Elon Musk is not in charge at DOGE, but is advising the president

National Politics |


States debate prison spending as needs grow but budgets tighten

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan found that there are legitimate questions about Musk’s authority, but said there isn’t evidence of the kind of grave legal harm that would justify a temporary restraining order.

The decision came in a lawsuit filed by 14 states challenging DOGE’s authority to access sensitive government data. The attorneys general argued that actions taken by Musk at the helm of DOGE can only be taken by a nominated and Senate-confirmed official under the Constitution.

The Trump administration has maintained that Musk doesn’t have authority of his own and layoffs are coming from agency heads.

Musk’s team has tapped into computer systems across multiple agencies with the blessing of President Donald Trump, digging into budgets and searching for what he calls waste, fraud and abuse, even as a growing number of lawsuits allege DOGE is violating the law.

Judge questions motives for Trump’s order banning transgender troops

posted in: All news | 0

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday questioned President Donald Trump’s motives for issuing an executive order that calls for banning transgender troops from serving in the U.S. military, describing a portion of the directive as “frankly ridiculous.”

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes indicated that she won’t rule before early March on whether to temporarily block the Trump administration from enforcing the order, which plaintiffs’ attorneys have said illegally discriminates against transgender troops.

But her questions and remarks during Tuesday’s hearing suggest that she is deeply skeptical of the administration’s reasoning for ordering a policy change. Reyes also lauded the service of several active-duty troops who sued to block the order.

“If you were in a foxhole, would you care about these individuals’ gender identity?” the judge asked a government attorney, who answered that it “would not be a primary concern of mine.”

Trump’s Jan. 27 order claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness. It requires Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to issue a revised policy.

Six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military sued to block the Trump administration from enforcing the order. In a court filing, plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Trump’s order openly expresses “hostility” and constitutionally impermissible “animus” toward transgender people.

Reyes said the order’s language smears thousands of transgender troops as dishonest, dishonorable and undisciplined.

She asked Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch: “How is that anything other than showing animus?”

“I don’t have an answer for you,” Lynch responded.

“No, you have an answer. You just don’t want to give it,” the judge shot back.

Trump’s order also says that “use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex” is inconsistent with a government policy to “establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”

Reyes said it is “frankly ridiculous” to suggest that pronoun usage could impact the military readiness of the U.S. armed forces.

“Because it doesn’t. Because any common sense, rational person would understand that it doesn’t,” said Reyes, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Reyes peppered Lynch for several hours with questions about the executive order. They disagreed on whether the language of the executive order explicitly bans transgender people from serving in the military.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Judge declines to immediately block Elon Musk or DOGE from federal data or layoffs

National Politics |


New York’s governor meets top political leaders as she weighs removing Mayor Eric Adams from office

National Politics |


Republican states claim zero abortions. A red-state doctor calls that ‘ludicrous’

National Politics |


White House says Elon Musk is not in charge at DOGE, but is advising the president

National Politics |


States debate prison spending as needs grow but budgets tighten

Reyes asked Lynch if Trump himself would call it a ban, then added, “He would say, ‘Of course it is,’ because he calls it a transgender ban.” Lynch said the order itself doesn’t require the discharge of service members while Hegseth crafts a policy that reflects it.

“Everyone knows a change is coming. I’m not denying that,” Lynch said.

Reyes is expected to hear more arguments on Wednesday and again on March 3.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys contend Trump’s order violates transgender people’s rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, marking them as “unequal and dispensable, demeaning them in the eyes of their fellow service members and the public.”

“The ban is an irrational and prejudicial attack on service members who have risked their lives to serve their country,” they wrote in a court filing.

Government attorneys say the plaintiffs are prematurely challenging an order that doesn’t immediately require transgender troops to be discharged. The Justice Department also argues that the constitutional right to equal protection “requires only that similarly situated persons be treated alike.”

“A transgender individual identifying as a woman is not similarly situated to a biological female, nor is a transgender individual identifying as a man similarly situated to a biological male,” they wrote.

During Trump’s first term, the Republican issued a directive directive to ban transgender service members. The Supreme Court allowed the ban to to take effect. Biden scrapped it when he took office.

Thousands of transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1 percent of all active-duty service members.

The plaintiffs include an Army Reserves platoon leader, an Army major who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan and a Sailor of the Year award winner serving in the Navy. They are represented by attorneys for the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law.