WASHINGTON: FBI Director Kash Patel was not part of a Signal chat in which other Trump administration national security officials discussed detailed attack plans, but that didn’t spare him from being questioned by lawmakers this week about whether the nation’s premier law enforcement agency would investigate.
Patel made no such commitments during the course of two days of Senate and House hearings, declining to comment on the possibility and testifying that he had not personally reviewed the text messages that were inadvertently shared with the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic who was mistakenly included on an unclassified Signal chat.
That Patel would be grilled on what the FBI might do was hardly surprising.
Even as President Donald Trump insisted “it’s not really an FBI thing,” the reality is that the FBI and Justice Department for decades have been responsible for enforcing Espionage Act statutes governing the mishandling — whether intentional or negligent — of national defense information like the kind shared on Signal, a publicly available app that provides encrypted communications but is not approved for classified information.
The Justice Department has broad discretion to open an investigation, though Attorney General Pam Bondi, who introduced Trump at a Justice Department event this month, signaled at an unrelated news conference on Thursday that she was disinclined to do so. She repeated Trump administration talking points that the highly sensitive information in the chat was not classified, though current and former US officials have said the posting of the exact launch times of aircraft and times that bombs would be released before those pilots were even in the air would have been classified.
She also quickly pivoted to two Democrats, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Joe Biden, who found themselves under investigation but never charged for allegedly mishandling classified information. Indeed, the department has conducted multiple high-profile investigations in recent years, albeit with differences in underlying facts and outcomes.
Multiple high-profile figures have found themselves under investigation in recent years over their handling of government secrets, but the differences in the underlying facts and the outcomes make it impossible to prognosticate what might happen in this instance or whether any accountability can be expected. There’s also precedent for public officials either to avoid criminal charges or be spared meaningful punishment.
“In terms of prior investigations, there were set-out standards that the department always looked at and tried to follow when making determinations about which types of disclosures they were going to pursue,” including the sensitivity of the information exposed the willfulness of the conduct, said former Justice Department prosecutor Michael Zweiback, who has handled classified information investigations.
A look at just a few of the notable prior investigations:
Hillary Clinton
The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee was investigated but not charged for her use of a private email server for the sake of convenience during her time as secretary of state in the Obama administration. There appear to be some parallels with the Signal chat episode.
The politically fraught criminal investigation was initiated by a 2015 referral from the intelligence agencies’ internal watchdog, which alerted the FBI to the presence of potentially hundreds of emails containing classified information on that server. Law enforcement then set out to determine whether Clinton, or her aides, had transmitted classified information on a server not meant to host such material.
The overall conclusions were something of a mixed bag.
Then-FBI Director James Comey, in a highly unusual public statement, asserted that the bureau had found evidence that Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information but recommended against charges because he said officials could not prove that she intended to break the law or knew that the information she and her aides were communicating about was classified.
The decision was derided by Republicans who thought the Obama administration Justice Department had let a fellow Democrat off the hook. Among those critical were some of the very same participants in the Signal chat as well as Bondi, who as Florida’s attorney general spoke at the 2016 Republican National Convention and mimicked the audience chant of “Lock her up!”
David Petraeus
Among the biggest names to actually get charged is Petraeus, the former CIA director sentenced in 2015 to two years’ probation for disclosing classified information to a biographer with whom he was having an extramarital affair.
That material consisted of eight binders of classified information that Petraeus improperly kept in his house from his time as the top military commander in Afghanistan. Among the secret details in the “black books” were the names of covert operatives, the coalition war strategy and notes about Petraeus’ discussions with President Barack Obama and the National Security Council, prosecutors have said.
Petraeus, a retired four-star Army general who led US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, wound up pleading guilty to a single misdemeanor count of unauthorized retention and removal of classified material as part of a deal with Justice Department prosecutors. Some national security experts said it smacked of a double-standard for its lenient outcome.
Comey himself would later complain about the resolution, writing in a 2018 book that he argued to the Justice Department that Petraeus should have also been charged with a felony for lying to the FBI.
“A poor person, an unknown person — say a young black Baptist minister from Richmond — would be charged with a felony and sent to jail,” he said.
Joe Biden and Donald Trump
These investigations don’t bear much parallel to the Signal episode but nonetheless serve as examples of high-profile probes launched by the department into the mishandling of classified information.
Both found themselves investigated by Justice Department special counsels, with Trump being charged with hoarding top-secret records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Trump had taken those records after leaving office. He was also accused of showing off a Pentagon attack plan to a visitor at his Bedminster golf club.
The case was dismissed by a Florida-based judge who concluded that special counsel Jack Smith had been improperly appointed. Prosecutors abandoned the case after Trump won in November.
Biden, too, was investigated for his retention of classified information in his home following his tenure as vice president. A special counsel found some evidence that Biden had willfully retained the records but concluded that criminal charges were not merited.
Jeffrey Sterling
A former CIA officer, Sterling was convicted of leaking to a reporter details of a secret mission to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions by slipping flawed nuclear blueprints to the Iranians through a Russian intermediary.
He was sentenced in 2015 to 3 1/2 years in prison, a punishment whistleblower advocates and other supporters decried as impossible to square with Petraeus’ misdemeanor guilty plea just a month earlier.
The details of the operation disclosed by Sterling were published by journalist James Risen in his 2006 book “State of War.”
Sterling was charged in 2010, but the trial was delayed for years, in part because of legal wrangling about whether Risen could be forced to testify. Ultimately, prosecutors chose not to call Risen as a witness, despite winning legal battles allowing them to do so.
Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries
https://arab.news/6b8ve
Bondi signals probe into Signal chat is unlikely, despite a long history of similar inquiries
- FBI and Justice Department for decades have been responsible for enforcing Espionage Act statutes governing the mishandling of national defense information
- Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled at an unrelated news conference on Thursday that she was disinclined to do so
Elon Musk hands out $1 million payments after Wisconsin Supreme Court declines request to stop him
- which will determine the ideological makeup of a court likely to decide key issues in a perennial battleground state
- The race which will determine the ideological makeup of a court likely to decide key issues in a perennial battleground state
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin: Elon Musk gave out $1 million checks on Sunday to two Wisconsin voters, declaring them spokespeople for his political group, ahead of a Wisconsin Supreme Court election that the tech billionaire cast as critical to President Donald Trump’s agenda and “the future of civilization.”
“It’s a super big deal,” he told a roughly 2,000-person crowd in Green Bay on Sunday night, taking the stage in a yellow cheesehead hat. “I’m not phoning it in. I’m here in person.”
Musk and groups he supports have spent more than $20 million to help conservative favorite Brad Schimel in Tuesday’s race, which will determine the ideological makeup of a court likely to decide key issues in a perennial battleground state. Musk has increasingly become the center of the contest, with liberal favorite Susan Crawford and her allies protesting Musk and what they say is the influence he wants to have on the court.
“I think this will be important for the future of civilization,” he said. “It’s that’s significant.”
He noted that the state high court may well take up redistricting of congressional districts, which could ultimately affect which party controls the US House.
“And if the (Wisconsin) Supreme Court is able to redraw the districts, they will gerrymander the district and deprive Wisconsin of two seats on the Republican side,” Musk said. “Then they will try to stop all the government reforms we are getting done for you, the American people.”
A unanimous state Supreme Court on Sunday refused to hear a last-minute attempt by the state’s Democratic attorney general to stop Musk from handing over the checks to two voters, a ruling that came just minutes before the planned start of the rally.
Two lower courts had already rejected the legal challenge by Democrat Josh Kaul, who argues that Musk’s offer violates a state law. “Wisconsin law prohibits offering anything of value to induce anyone to vote,” Kaul argued in his filing. “Yet, Elon Musk did just that.”
But the state Supreme Court, which is currently controlled 4-3 by liberal justices, declined to take the case as an original action. The court gave no rationale for its decision.
Kaul had no immediate comment on the court’s order.
Musk’s attorneys argued in filings with the court that Musk was exercising his free speech rights with the giveaways and any attempt to restrict that would violate both the Wisconsin and US constitutions.
The payments are “intended to generate a grassroots movement in opposition to activist judges, not to expressly advocate for or against any candidate,” Musk’s attorneys argued in court filings.
Musk’s political action committee used a nearly identical tactic before the presidential election last year, offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second amendments. A judge in Pennsylvania said prosecutors failed to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue through Election Day.
Liberals currently hold a 4-3 majority on the court. All four liberal justices have endorsed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, the Democratic-backed candidate.
Musk’s attorneys, about four hours before the rally was to begin, asked that two liberal justices who have campaigned for Crawford — Jill Karofsky and Rebecca Dallet — recuse themselves from the case. His attorneys argued their work for Crawford creates “the specter of inappropriate bias.” If they did recuse, that would leave the court with a 3-2 conservative majority.
Both justices rejected the request and said they would spell out their reasons why at a later date.
One of the court’s conservative justices has endorsed Schimel, who wore a “Make America Great Again” hat while campaigning Sunday.
Schimel said in a national television interview that he does not control “any of the spending from any outside group, whether it’s Elon Musk or anyone else” and that all Trump asked was whether he would “reject activist judges” and follow the law.
“That’s exactly what I’ve committed to anybody, whether it’s President Trump, Elon Musk or any donors and donors or supporters or voters in Wisconsin. That’s my commitment,” Schimel told “Fox News Sunday.”
The contest has shattered national spending records for a judicial election, with more than $81 million in spending.
It comes as Wisconsin’s highest court is expected to rule on abortion rights, congressional redistricting, union power and voting rules that could affect the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election in the state.
France’s far right leader Le Pen faces verdict that could end presidential hopes
- The far-right leader is accused of engaging in an alleged fake jobs scam at the EU parliament
- Prosecutors have asked the court to issue her with both a jail sentence and a ban from holding public office
PARIS: A French court on Monday will rule in the trial of far-right leader Marine Le Pen over an alleged fake jobs scam at the EU parliament, a verdict which could ruin her chances of standing in the next presidential elections in two years.
Three-time presidential candidate Le Pen, who scents her best-ever chance to win the French presidency in 2027, has vehemently denied any wrongdoing.
But prosecutors in the case, which also targets other top National Rally (RN) officials, have asked the court to issue Le Pen with both a jail sentence and a ban from holding public office.
The latter should come into force immediately even if she appeals, according to the demand made by prosecutors last year, essentially disqualifying her from the presidential polls in two years if the court follows the request.
Le Pen said in a piece for the La Tribune Dimanche newspaper published on Sunday that the verdict gives the “judges the right of life or death over our movement.”
But referring to her potential immediate barring from standing for office, she added: “I do not think that they will go that far.”
As well as a five-year ban on holding office, prosecutors asked that Le Pen be given five years in prison — with three suspended and the two years potentially served outside of jail with a bracelet — and a 300,000 euro ($324,000) fine.
With her RN emerging as the single largest party in parliament after the 2024 legislative elections, Le Pen believes she has the momentum to finally take the Elysee in 2027 on the back of public concern over immigration and the cost of living.
Polls currently predict she would easily top the first round of voting and make the run-off.
If successful in 2027, she could join a growing number of hard- and far-right leaders around the world ranging from Giorgia Meloni in Italy to Hungary’s Viktor Orban.
Should she be condemned, waiting in the wings is her protege and RN party leader Jordan Bardella, just 29, who is not under investigation in the case.
Bardella last week became the first RN party leader to visit Israel, invited by the government to address a conference on the fight against anti-Semitism in a trip denounced by opponents as hypocrisy.
But there are doubts even within the party over the so-called “Plan B” and whether he has the experience for a presidential campaign.
Le Pen took over as head of the then-National Front (FN) in 2011 but rapidly took steps toward making the party an electoral force and shaking off the controversial legacy of its co-founder and her father Jean-Marie Le Pen, who died earlier this year and who was often accused of making racist and anti-Semitic comments.
She renamed it the National Rally and embarked on a policy known as “dediabolization” (de-demonization) with the stated aim of making it acceptable to a wider range of voters.
Political death
Besides Le Pen, the RN is also in the dock and risks a fine of 4.3 million euros ($4.6 million), less than half of which would be suspended.
A total of 24 people are on trial, including nine former members of the European Parliament and their 12 parliamentary assistants.
A shocked Le Pen said after the prosecutors’ demands were announced that they were seeking “my political death” and accused them of denying the French a free choice at the next elections.
But prosecutors have insisted there has been no “harassment” of the RN.
They accuse the party of easing pressure on its own finances by using all of the 21,000-euro monthly allowance to which MEPs were entitled to pay “fictitious” parliamentary assistants, who actually worked for the party.
And prosecutors argue its “organized” nature was “strengthened” when Marine Le Pen took over as party leader in 2011.
According to an Ifop poll published by the Journal du Dimanche newspaper, Le Pen would win 34-37 percent in the first round of the next presidential elections. Her fate in the run-off second round would likely depend on whether all her opponents united to vote against her.
But with President Emmanuel Macron unable to stand again, it is far from clear who the strongest candidate will be from the center and traditional right to succeed him.
One possible hopeful, powerful Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin, said in November while still a backbencher that it would be “profoundly shocking” if Le Pen could not stand.
Advancing Trump agenda depends on spending cuts, says conservative Republican senator
- Johnson wants to scale back total federal outlays from an estimated $7 trillion this year to a $4.4 trillion level seen in 2019
- Several Senate Republicans want far larger reductions than the House target to pay for the Trump agenda and address the $36.6 trillion US debt
WASHINGTON: A prominent conservative senator predicted on Sunday that Donald Trump’s tax-cuts and immigration agenda will not advance in the US Senate unless the president and Republican leaders agree to slash federal spending to a level last seen before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Republican Ron Johnson, a member of the Senate’s budget and tax-writing committees, said spending cuts need to exceed a $2 trillion target approved as part of the agenda by the House of Representatives. He called on Republican leaders to create a review process to find additional cuts in the federal budget.
“Without a commitment to returning to some reasonable pre-pandemic spending level, and a process to actually achieve it, I don’t think that’s going anywhere,” the Wisconsin Republican told the Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” program.
“That’s going to be the discussion,” said Johnson, who wants to scale back total federal outlays from an estimated $7 trillion this year to a $4.4 trillion level seen in 2019.
“We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address this. This is our moment,” he said.
Johnson’s comments could spell trouble for Senate majority leader John Thune, who hopes to pass a revised version of the House plan this week.
Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate and need at least 50 votes to pass the agenda plan with Vice President JD Vance wielding a tie-breaking vote.
But congressional Republicans are widely split over spending cuts. Like Johnson, several Senate Republicans want far larger reductions than the House target to pay for the Trump agenda and address the $36.6 trillion US debt. Others are urging modest cuts to protect social safety-net programs including Medicaid health coverage for low-income Americans.
The House and Senate need to pass the same blueprint to unlock a parliamentary tool known as budget reconciliation, which would enable them to enact Trump’s agenda later this year by circumventing Democratic opposition in the Senate.
Last week, Trump pulled his nomination of Republican Representative Elize Stefanik as US ambassador to the United Nations, saying the move would help ensure his agenda’s success in the House, where Republicans hold a razor-thin 218-213 majority.
Declining Eid travel and spending dampen holiday spirit as soaring prices hit Indonesia
- Each year in Indonesia, nearly three-quarters of the population of the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country travel for the annual homecoming known locally as “mudik” that is always welcomed with excitement
JAKARTA, Indonesia: The usual festive mood of Eid Al-Fitr holiday to mark the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan has been subdued in Indonesia this year as people grapple with soaring prices for food, clothing and essential goods.
Consumer spending ahead of the biggest religious holiday for Muslims, which was celebrated on Sunday in Indonesia, has declined compared to the previous year, with a predicted slowdown in cash circulation due to fewer travelers.
Each year in Indonesia, nearly three-quarters of the population of the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country travel for the annual homecoming known locally as “mudik” that is always welcomed with excitement.
People pour out of major cities to return to villages to celebrate the holiday with prayers, feasts and family gatherings. Flights are overbooked and anxious relatives weighed down with boxes of gifts form long lines at bus and train stations for the journey
But this year the Transportation Ministry said Eid travelers reached 146 million people, a 24 percent drop from last year’s 194 million travelers.
The Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry projects that money circulation during Eid will reach 137.97 trillion rupiah ($8.33 billion), down from 157.3 trillion last year. The weakening purchasing power is also reflected in Bank Indonesia’s Consumer Confidence Index which dipped to 126.4 in February from 127.2 in January.
Bhima Yudistira, executive director of the Center for Economic and Law Studies, or Celios, said those trends indicate the economy is under strain, driven by economic hardship, coupled with currency depreciation and mass layoffs in manufacturing.
“These have weakened both corporate earnings and workers’ incomes that suppress consumer spending,” Yudistira said, adding he “expects a less vibrant festive season.”
He said the festive spirit has been stifled by harsh economic realities, as soaring prices and dwindling incomes force residents to prioritize survival over celebration.
Traditionally household consumption is a key driver of Indonesia’s GDP. It contributed over 50 percent to the economy last year, helping push annual growth to 5.11 percent. However, consumer spending in 2025 is expected to be more subdued, Yudistira said.
Despite the downturn, the government remains optimistic that the Ramadan and Eid momentum will support economic growth in the first quarter of 2025.
“Eid usually boosts the economy through increased spending,” Chief Economic Affairs Minister Airlangga Hartarto said ahead of the Islamic holiday.
The government recently introduced incentives to stimulate economic activity, including airfare and toll road fee discounts, nationwide online shopping events, direct cash assistance for 16 million households, electricity bill reductions for low-consumption customers, and tax exemptions for labor-intensive sectors.
“With these programs in place, the government hopes to sustain consumer spending and support economic stability,” Hartarto said.
The situation has also affected Endang Trisilowati, a mother of four, who said her family had to scale down their festivities budget.
“Honestly, the economic hardship is affecting us,” Trisilowati said. She described how she used to cook different dishes every Eid and invite neighbors, but now she can only afford a simple meal for her family.
“Many have resorted to just finding a way to eat on that festivity, but the spirit is low,” she said.
Trump warns Zelensky not to back off minerals deal
WASHINGTON : US President Donald Trump warned on Sunday that his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky would have “big problems” if he goes cold on a deal to sign over mineral rights.
Trump is trying to broker a ceasefire between Ukraine and its Russian invader, and has been pushing Zelensky to sign an agreement to give US firms access to Ukrainian rare earth mineral.
Briefing reporters on his Air Force Once jet, Trump said: “I see he’s trying to back out of the rare earth deal. And if he does that he’s got some problems. Big, big problems.”
