https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...sy-devos-against-ripped-off-college-students/ Biden Admin Teams Up with Ex-Trump DOJ Official to Defend Betsy DeVos Against Ripped-Off College Students The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Joe Biden is going to the mat for former secretary of education Betsy DeVos. In a Monday filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton and other DOJ attorneys argued that students who were ripped off by for-profit scam colleges cannot depose the former Trump-era official. “The [students’] demand for a former cabinet official’s deposition is extraordinary, unnecessary, and unsupported,” the filing alleges. “It is a transparent attempt at harassment—part of a PR campaign that has been central to [the students’] litigation strategy from the outset. It should be rejected and the court should quash the subpoena.” Making common cause with the DOJ in the motion to quash is another Trump-era official: former acting associate attorney general Jesse Panuccio. Now an attorney with elite law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Panuccio is acting as DeVos’s personal attorney “and is represented in her capacity as former U.S. Secretary of Education by the U.S. Department of Justice,” the filing explains in a footnote. As a matter of law, the Biden administration does not have to take on DeVos’s representation here. The DOJ picks and chooses whether to represent present and former officials—but they are not bound by any rules, regulations or federal statues to do so. Additionally, there does not appear to be any extant legal authority for the DOJ to represent DeVos here in her personal capacity because she’s not actually a party to the underlying litigation. In order for DOJ to represent DeVos like this, the agency is supposed to initially file a statement of interest but no such document has been filed in the case. The underlying case concerns hundreds of students who were defrauded by various for-profit colleges across the country. The students, all federal student loan borrowers who are currently in debt, sued the U.S. Department of Education because DeVos’s agency was accused of serially dragging its feet when asked to process student loan debt cancellation requests. Multiple courts in the Northern District of California agreed with the students. DeVos herself ultimately admitted that student borrowers had paid for educational programs that were effectively “worthless.” Still, DeVos continued to collect student loan payments from some 75,000 defrauded students who attended classes at the Corinthian Colleges chain. In May 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of California Sallie Kim barred the Department of Education from collecting payments on those student loans in the case stylized as Martin Manriquez v. Elisabeth DeVos. After that, DeVos and the Department of Education continued to try and collect on thousands of those loans—eventually being found in violation of a court order. The Department of Education later admitted to “erroneously” violating that court order. After being forced to reconsider student debt cancellation requests, DeVos’s agency took their time—ignoring new requests for some 18 months. A different group of students sued, alleging DeVos’s “delay to be unlawful stonewalling.” Judge Kim certified those students as a class in Oct. 2019. Now those students want DeVos to sit for a deposition. That request was recently signed off on by U.S. District Judge William Alsup. As Republic Report journalist David Halperin noted in that outlet’s original reporting, DeVos was subpoenaed on Jan. 26—some 19 days after she resigned. But the motion to quash offers a notable timeline: DeVos formally tendered her resignation the day after she was alerted that the students were intent on having her deposed. DeVos submitted her resignation on Jan. 7—the day after the Capitol siege. She blamed Trump’s “rhetoric” for the impacting the mob and the “situation.” But the Biden administration and DeVos’s private counsel have other plans. In their motion, Boynton and Panuccio criticize the district court for its orders and accuse the students and their attorneys of being little more than media hounds intent on harassment. “Plaintiffs appear to be more interested in the deposition itself (and the press attention that might come with it) than in the information they claim to seek,” the DOJ motion alleges. The Biden administration DOJ repeatedly takes issue with a press release issued by the students’ lawyers after Judge Alsup okayed the DeVos deposition. “Plaintiffs rebuffed Defendants’ offers to explore alternative sources, and instead hastily rushed to the district court in the underlying action (overlooking the need for a Rule 45 subpoena) to try to secure their sought-after deposition while also filing a celebratory press release,” the motion notes at one point. The DOJ criticizes the press release again in a section complaining that the students declined to wait for the conclusion of an internal Department of Education investigation before filing: “Plaintiffs waited less than five hours before filing their request for the former Secretary’s deposition—followed by a celebratory press release.” A lengthy footnote critiques the press release further: In that press release, class counsel frankly reveal that they view a deposition of the former Secretary as necessary because she allegedly has a generalized “obligation to explain why defrauded student borrowers were ignored for years by the Education Department and then summarily denied their rights.” But the APA creates no such legal obligation, an dthe press release’s statement stands in stark contrast to Plaintiffs’ claim to the district court that they merely seek narrow categories of information that is unavailable from other sources. And, of course, the press release shows that Plaintiffs’ counsel is seeking, through this high-profile deposition, to get much more than the only thing sought in the Complaint: a “simple” order compelling the Department [of Education] to “start granting or denying their borrower defenses.” A source familiar with the litigation said the language used by the DOJ in the motion to quash was unusually harsh and striking. They questioned the decision to cast admittedly defrauded students as harassers trying to attain a PR coup—as well as the general decision by the Biden administration to defend DeVos in the first place. Jeff Hauser, an attorney and the executive director of the Revolving Door Project—an offshoot of the left-wing Center for Economic and Policy Research think tank—told Law&Crime that the decision to defend former executive branch officials is not entirely unlike a norm that should have lapsed when DeVos quit her job. “My understanding is that it is a (problematic) norm if she were still Secretary and not a norm now that she is not,” Hauser said. “And we also think that figures like Trump and DeVos long ago forfeited the benefit of such norms.” Some have questioned whether the abrasive motion was written by DeVos’s counsel and then signed off on by government line attorneys and the acting attorney general after a cursory read-through. The motion to quash the subpoena was jointly authored by Obama administration alum Boynton and Panuccio as well as DOJ attorneys Marcia Berman, R. Charlie Merritt and Kevin P. Hancock. The subpoena itself notes that the deposition is ” to be conducted via remote technology, with witness located in Vero Beach, Florida,” which is how the government and DeVos managed to file their stonewalling effort in the notoriously anti-government transparency Southern District of Florida. The students, for their part, are hoping to get the case back where they say it belongs—which also happens to be much-friendlier ground. “We will seek transfer of DeVos’s motion to quash to the appropriate court in California where we will continue to press for her deposition,” Eileen Connor, the legal director for the Project on Predatory Student Lending at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School and one of the students’ attorneys, told Law&Crime. Read the joint DeVos-DOJ motion below:
Dems itching to lose 2022: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/540427-democrats-hesitant-to-move-on-taxes-amid-pandemic Democrats hesitant to raise taxes amid pandemic President Biden declared during the campaign that he would repeal the Trump tax cuts on “day one,” but after more than a month in office, some key Democratic lawmakers say they are reluctant to raise taxes during an economic slowdown. “I think we should not be raising taxes,” said one Democratic House member who requested anonymity because the lawmaker was not ready to reveal a public position. “People would accept the corporate tax raised a few points but beyond that you’re going to have problems, especially in the middle of an economic crisis.” For context, the dems can overrule the parliamentarian, for reference, look at Moscow Mitch passing 2017 tax cuts through reconciliation: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/25/us/politics/federal-minimum-wage.html Top Senate Official Disqualifies Minimum Wage From Stimulus Plan The parliamentarian ruled that the provision, which would gradually increase the wage to $15 an hour, violated the strict budgetary rules that limit what can be included in the package. “President Biden is disappointed in this outcome,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. “He respects the parliamentarian’s decision and the Senate’s process. He will work with leaders in Congress to determine the best path forward because no one in this country should work full time and live in poverty.”
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/26/politics/biden-mohammed-bin-salman-jamal-khashoggi/index.html Biden doesn't penalize crown prince despite promise to punish senior Saudi leaders (CNN)Despite promising to punish senior Saudi leaders while on the campaign trail, President Joe Biden declined to apply sanctions to the one the US intelligence community determined is responsible for the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The choice not to punish Prince Mohammed directly puts into sharp relief the type of decision-making that becomes more complicated for a president versus a candidate, and demonstrates the difficulty in breaking with a troublesome ally in a volatile region. On Friday, Biden's administration released an unclassified intelligence report on Khashoggi's death, an action his predecessor refused to take as he downplayed US intelligence. The report from the director of national intelligence says the crown prince, known as MBS, directly approved the killing of Khashoggi. But while Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced visa restrictions that affected 76 Saudis involved in harassing activists and journalists, he didn't announce measures that touch the prince. And while a sanctions list from the Treasury Department named a former deputy intelligence chief and the Saudi Royal Guard's rapid intervention force, the crown prince wasn't mentioned. Two administration officials said sanctioning MBS was never really an option, operating under the belief it would have been "too complicated" and could have jeopardized US military interests in Saudi Arabia. As a result, the administration did not even request the State Department to work up options for how to target MBS with sanctions, one State Department official said. In November 2019, Biden promised to punish senior Saudi leaders in a way former President Donald Trump wouldn't. "Yes," he said when directly asked if he would. "And I said it at the time. Khashoggi was, in fact, murdered and dismembered, and I believe on the order of the crown prince. And I would make it very clear we were not going to, in fact, sell more weapons to them, we were going to, in fact, make them pay the price and make them the pariah that they are." "There's very little social redeeming value in the present government in Saudi Arabia," he said. "They have to be held accountable." The Biden administration's definition of accountability is now coming into sharper view. The President has ended US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen and ordered an end to some weapons sales to the kingdom, while top aides say he wants to "recalibrate" the relationship. Administration officials acknowledge it will be tricky. In an exclusive interview with NPR set to air Friday afternoon, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines conceded the report could complicate US-Saudi relations going forward. "I am sure it is not going to make things easier," she said. "But I think it's also fair to say that it is not unexpected." A senior administration official, in explaining the decision to forgo punishment for the crown prince in light of the report, said the information released Friday was not new and had been known to the US government for more than a year. Responding to the report, the Saudi foreign ministry said it "completely rejects the negative, false and unacceptable assessment in the report pertaining to the Kingdom's leadership." The relationship with Riyadh itself appears too valuable for the Biden administration to abandon altogether by punishing the man who is widely viewed as running the kingdom. State Department officials said that the Biden administration made a point not to upend any working-level discussions between the two countries because the security relationship is so important. In many ways that calculation is the same one the Trump administration made in deciding to stop short of punishing MBS. Officials in both the Trump and Biden administrations have acknowledged privately that Saudi Arabia is a critical partner on counterterrorism actions and as a regional counterweight to Iran, making any attempt at distance nearly impossible. "It's hard to imagine any issue in the region where Saudi partnership and support doesn't play a significant role," Dennis Ross, a former special Middle East coordinator, told CNN. Gerald Feierstein, a former principal deputy assistant decretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs now with the Middle East Institute, said the administration is balancing its response against its other priorities, such as ending the conflict in Yemen, lowering tensions in the Gulf region and counter-terrorism efforts are also factors, and all require a stable US-Saudi bilateral relationship. Most crucially, "with US-Iran negotiations likely to restart later this year, Biden will need Saudi acquiescence, if not enthusiasm, to sell an eventual deal in the region," said Ayham Kamel, the Practice Head, Middle East and North Africa at the Eurasia Group. Another factor that analysts point to: the crown prince does serve to further some US goals, among them his attempt to modernize and overhaul the Saudi economy. "While the crown prince comes with serious baggage, his reforms are productive channels of modernizing the kingdom, limiting the influence of the Wahhabi clerical establishment, promoting a greater degree of religious tolerance and empowering the youth," Kamel said. "We have a stake in seeing him succeed in making his modernization drive a success, we have a stake in their transition from fossil fuels," Ross said. Kamel said that "the Biden team is not looking to deepen direct US political influence in Saudi Arabia and impact the debate over succession in the house of al Saud," and that the Saudis are willing to listen -- to a degree. "The Saudi leadership has firmly decided to adopt a constructive position over the short term to limit tensions with the US," Kamel said, pointing to the release of human rights activists as "an olive branch." And while Saudi officials understand that Biden is under pressure in Washington to act, "they are not convinced that Riyadh lacks leverage," Kamel said, referencing their security relationships they have developed with countries such as France and Russia and their ability to leverage ties with China to counter the US
There was a guy with a phone video of state troopers escorting Antifa on buses to the Capitol. He even posted it on You Tube. The wonder of wonders is why is the Antifa terrorists not even charged for January 6, 2021 supposed storming of the Capitol? They have photos and videos of those guys. Why are they exempt from arrest?
Probably, pawns of the likes of globalist George Soros. After all, the January 6, 2021 so called riots, you have Antifa destroying property and engaging in violence just the same to have it all blamed on Trump supporters. None of them was charged mind you and extreme liberal media only blames Trump supporters so, yes, the globalists has extreme liberal minions on their payroll just to create trouble. Antifa thugs do not care as long as they get paid. None of them work for free.