21 C
Los Angeles
Saturday, October 25, 2025

Why Marc Short Attacks the White House Ballroom Plan

Key Takeaways • Marc Short, former chief of...

Could Migrants Be Held on Military Bases Abroad?

Key Takeaways • A judge asked if the...

Why Epstein Files Must Finally Be Unsealed

Key Takeaways • The Epstein files contain names...
Home Blog Page 8

Was Lindsey Halligan’s Interim U.S. Attorney Role Unlawful?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Was Lindsey Halligan’s Interim U.S. Attorney Role Unlawful?

Key Takeaways

• The interim U.S. attorney role must follow strict rules under the Constitution and the Vacancies Act.
• Critics say Lindsey Halligan’s appointment broke those rules after a 120-day limit.
• If her appointment was unlawful, the indictment she signed might be invalid.
• Legal experts warn about the dangers of bypassing Senate confirmation.
• This case could affect other decisions made by acting officials in the Justice Department.

The Justice Department has clear steps for naming a temporary leader during a vacancy. First, the president picks someone. Then the Senate must confirm. After that, the appointee serves. Yet, critics argue that Lindsey Halligan’s interim U.S. attorney status ignored those steps. Now her work on major cases faces fresh legal attacks.

Understanding Interim U.S. Attorney Rules

The Constitution’s Appointment Clause demands Senate approval for top legal posts. Likewise, the Vacancies Reform Act lets the president fill a vacancy only for 120 days. After that, a federal court must choose a temporary U.S. attorney. Thus, the system balances power between the president and Congress. This design stops any leader from holding power too long without oversight.

What Happened with Lindsey Halligan

In this case, Halligan’s predecessor served under the 120-day rule. Once that period ended, Senate confirmation did not happen. Instead, Halligan took over again. Critics say that second move broke the law. They point out that the president cannot reset the 120-day clock. As a result, she never held lawful authority after her predecessor’s term expired.

Why the Interim U.S. Attorney Rule Matters

If the interim U.S. attorney role is not lawful, any grand jury appearances or indictments by that official could be void. For example, high-profile targets could argue that their charges must be dropped. Therefore, the legality of Halligan’s appointment has huge stakes. It could reshape how courts view actions taken by any acting official without Senate approval.

Views from Legal Experts

On a popular podcast, former prosecutors explained the issue in simple terms. They said the president tried to hold onto power beyond his legal reach. They also noted that previous acting U.S. attorneys in other districts faced similar challenges. Those cases ended with courts declaring that decisions by unconfirmed leaders had no force. Moreover, national security specialists on social platforms called out the move as a clear rule violation.

Former FBI directors and current defendants in other cases have cited the same law. They argue that any motion signed by Halligan lacks legal backing. Therefore, they seek to dismiss charges based on this technical flaw. This move ties directly to the core law on interim appointments.

What Lies Ahead for Justice Department Appointments

Looking forward, Congress may tighten rules to prevent another bypass. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court could weigh in. If it rules that acting officials must follow the 120-day limit strictly, many past decisions could be challenged. This outcome would force the administration to rely more on Senate-confirmed leaders for big cases.

Furthermore, senators may block nominees unless the White House plays by the rules. This pressure could slow down key appointments and impact major investigations. At the same time, the Justice Department needs leaders it trusts to run big cases smoothly. Striking a balance will require careful work by both branches of government.

Lessons from Past Administrations

This situation is not the first time an administration used “acting” leaders extensively. Critics say the pattern started early in the last administration. Officials served beyond approved terms, often escaping court challenges. Yet, each court pushback highlighted the risk of ignoring confirmation rules. In some cases, judges threw out decisions made by unconfirmed appointees.

Therefore, this case serves as another warning. It shows why the Senate’s role in confirmations matters. It also highlights the perils of relying too heavily on temporary fixes. Both major political parties should note these lessons. Otherwise, the integrity of key legal decisions could erode further.

The Path to a Stronger System

To avoid similar disputes, lawmakers could amend the Vacancies Act. They might clarify when and how interim U.S. attorneys can serve. For example, stricter deadlines or automatic court referrals could help. In addition, the Justice Department could improve its internal checks. It could verify appointment steps before assigning duties.

Such measures would strengthen public trust. They would ensure that every case proceeds under a clearly valid authority. Consequently, defendants and prosecutors alike would face fewer technical challenges. The focus could stay on the merits of each case rather than procedural debates.

Transitioning to a confirmed official remains the best long-term solution. A Senate vote provides clear legitimacy. It also avoids costly legal fights. For major investigations, this certainty is crucial. It protects both the government’s power to act and individuals’ rights.

FAQs

What does an interim U.S. attorney do?

An interim U.S. attorney leads a district office temporarily when the Senate has not confirmed a nominee. They run prosecutions and advise on legal matters until a full-time appointee takes over.

How long can an interim U.S. attorney serve?

Under the Vacancies Act, an interim U.S. attorney can serve for a maximum of 120 days. After that, a federal court selects a temporary replacement if no Senate confirmation occurs.

Why does the Senate confirmation matter?

Senate confirmation checks the executive branch’s power. It ensures qualified candidates lead important legal offices and that the public’s interests receive proper review.

What happens if an interim U.S. attorney was not lawfully appointed?

If an interim U.S. attorney ignored the 120-day limit or lacked confirmation, courts might void their actions. That could include dismissing indictments and undoing other legal steps they took.

Why U.S. Consumer Sentiment Feels Like a Crisis

Reginald Edward
-
0
Why U.S. Consumer Sentiment Feels Like a Crisis

Key Takeaways

• U.S. consumer sentiment has fallen to levels last seen during the 2008–2009 financial crisis.
• Job seekers and new graduates face unusually weak hiring, especially long-term unemployed.
• A “K-shaped” economy is widening the gap between rich and poor households.
• Rising delinquencies on car loans and credit cards show mounting strain on families.
• Tech stocks rally, yet most Americans gain nothing from a soaring market.

Understanding consumer sentiment

Consumer sentiment measures how people feel about the economy. When sentiment is high, shoppers spend more. When it is low, families tighten budgets. Lately, consumer sentiment has plunged. In fact, it now matches the depths of 2008–2009. This drop signals real pain among many Americans.

Why consumer sentiment has plunged

Several factors drive this slump. First, job seekers face tough odds. Although there are no mass layoffs yet, openings remain scarce. New graduates and those out of work struggle to find steady work. Second, long-term unemployment has soared. Many who lose jobs stay out of work for more than six months. In turn, this rise hits confidence hard. Finally, Black unemployment has jumped. This group is often first fired and last hired. Its struggles can warn of deeper trouble ahead.

The K-shaped economy in action

Meanwhile, the economy splits into two tracks. Wealthy households see their assets grow. They profit from rising stock values and tech-driven gains. Conversely, lower-income families feel severe pressure. Rising car loan and credit card delinquencies prove they are stretched thin. Many shoppers now buy cheaper groceries. Consequently, most of the gains go to the top 10 percent of earners, who account for nearly half of all consumer spending.

Weak job market signals

Hiring rates today hover just above crisis levels. Indeed, companies add workers at a pace similar to 2008–2009. Surveys from business groups once painted a rosy picture. Before the pandemic, nearly half of people said jobs were plentiful. Now, only about one in four feel that way. They are right to worry. Overall unemployment barely rose, but long-term joblessness exploded. Thus, sentiment falls even when official numbers look stable.

Black unemployment as a warning light

Black workers have long faced the harshest job swings. They tend to be “last hired, first fired.” As the economy cooled, their jobless rate soared. Since they make up an early share of layoffs, their struggles hint at broader weakness. When Black unemployment spikes, more pain often follows for the general population. Therefore, this measure is a key signal for future trends.

A stock market that helps only some

Despite weak sentiment, stock markets keep moving higher. Investors bet on new tech and AI breakthroughs. Yet this boom feels like a repeat of the late 1990s bubble. Some experts even warn of risky private lending, echoing subprime problems from 2008. Still, the stock rally largely benefits the wealthy. The top 10 percent of households own 87 percent of all equities. In contrast, the bottom half own almost no stock. As a result, rising markets do little to boost average consumer sentiment.

What now for U.S. families

Given these trends, the road ahead looks bumpy. For many, hiring remains too slow to restore confidence. Credit card and loan delinquencies may keep rising, hitting sentiment further. Food prices could push more shoppers toward discount brands. In turn, stores might face weaker profits. Meanwhile, stock gains will likely stay concentrated at the top. Without broader job growth, most households will feel left out.

However, some steps could ease pressure. Expanding job training can help long-term unemployed workers. Targeted support for those entering the labor force may lift morale. Policies that boost wages for lower-income families could also improve confidence. Moreover, careful oversight of credit markets can reduce risky lending. If these measures take hold, consumer sentiment may recover slowly.

For now, though, the picture remains bleak. Many families feel stuck between high costs and limited job options. While wealthier consumers keep spending, most Americans are holding back. As a result, overall demand may stay weak, keeping the economic outlook uncertain.

FAQs

What is consumer sentiment?

Consumer sentiment is a measure of how optimistic people feel about the economy and their own finances. It often predicts future spending.

Why does a K-shaped economy matter?

A K-shaped economy means some households gain wealth while others lose ground. This gap can hurt overall spending and slow recovery.

How does long-term unemployment affect sentiment?

When jobless periods stretch past six months, people grow discouraged. They spend less and report lower confidence, dragging down sentiment.

Will rising tech stocks improve consumer sentiment?

Mostly no. Since stock ownership is concentrated among wealthy households, most people see little direct benefit. As a result, their confidence often stays low.

Why the Shutdown Deal Won’t Stop the Fight

Reginald Edward
-
0
Why the Shutdown Deal Won’t Stop the Fight

Key Takeaways

  • Lawmakers are stuck over a short-term funding plan called the shutdown deal.
  • The president can erase approved budgets through recissions without full votes.
  • “Pocket recissions” let him quietly cancel money at year’s end.
  • A rushed shutdown deal gives Democrats no real control over spending.
  • Talks broke down because leaders left early and refused to negotiate.

What Is the Shutdown Deal?

A shutdown deal is a short-term plan to keep the government open. It sets funding levels until lawmakers agree on a full budget. However, this plan does not always guarantee spending. Normally, Congress passes funding and the president must spend it. Yet, under the current rules and practices, that promise can break down. As a result, the shutdown deal feels more like a pause button than a solution.

Why the Shutdown Deal Is Misleading

At first glance, a shutdown deal seems “clean.” It keeps funding steady without extra rules. In reality, it hides a risky gap. Without clear limits on recissions, the president can undo parts of the budget later. Thus, what looks like a simple stopgap can let leaders chip away at spending. For lawmakers who worry about key programs, that uncertainty makes any shutdown deal unsafe.

The Elephant in the Room

The biggest issue isn’t funding levels. It’s who controls the money once it’s approved. In past years, a continuing resolution meant approved dollars got spent. Yet, the president now uses recissions to block funds. This power shift makes a shutdown deal far less meaningful. After all, if approved spending can vanish, what stops leaders from cutting vital projects?

What Are Recissions?

A recission is a formal move to reverse approved spending. Congress votes to pull back money in past budgets. Normally, senators can filibuster spending bills. But recission bills avoid that rule. They need only 50 votes to pass. Leaders have used this tool to remove items like foreign aid and public broadcasting. So recissions let the president and allies undo earlier deals without full Senate debate.

Pocket Recissions in Action

Even more troubling is the “pocket recission.” Here, the president simply refuses to spend approved funds. Then, when the fiscal year ends, he claims the money never went out. Congress has no chance to vote on this move. If lawmakers want that money later, they must ask again. This tactic quietly strips billions from budgets. It also avoids any vote to undo the cut.

Why a “Clean” Deal Fails

Republicans call their plan a “clean” shutdown deal because it has no policy riders. Yet, they refuse to limit recissions or ban pocket recissions. As long as that power stays, Democrats lose control after the deal passes. Moreover, past promises show leaders break funding commitments at will. Consequently, a deal that seems safe offers no real budget protection.

The Road Ahead

Unfortunately, the shutdown will last until one side budges. Democrats must decide if they will risk passing a bad deal or hold firm. Republicans must choose between binding agreements or endless cuts by recission. True negotiations could end the fight now, as they did in past shutdowns. However, trust is low and time is short. Without clear limits on recissions in any shutdown deal, the cycle could start again soon.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does recission mean in government budgets?

A recission is when lawmakers vote to reverse previously approved spending. It lets them cut funds after a budget passes without filibusters in the Senate.

Can a president really skip spending approved money?

Yes. Through pocket recissions, a president may simply not spend certain funds. When the fiscal year ends, Congress must reapprove if it wants to restore that money.

Why did talks break down before the shutdown?

Leaders left town early, avoiding votes on sensitive items. They also refused to meet in good faith. That left little time to iron out recission rules or spending levels.

How can the shutdown end?

Lawmakers could agree on a deal that bans recissions and pocket recissions. Alternatively, one side might accept a short-term fix, giving up leverage. Otherwise, the shutdown continues until positions shift.

No Permits for White House Ballroom Renovation

Reginald Edward
-
0
No Permits for White House Ballroom Renovation

Key Takeaways:

• No permits or plans filed for the White House ballroom renovation
• A stop-work order has halted all demolition and construction
• Designer Sarah Boardman found zero permit records and raised the alarm
• Critics call this project a “presidential vanity project”
• Historic preservation group demands public review before work resumes

In a surprising turn, the White House ballroom renovation has hit a major roadblock. Work that began during the government shutdown has been halted. A stop-work order now stands in place. No official permits or plans have been filed. Meanwhile, a designer’s online detective work is stirring fresh controversy.

How a Stop-Work Order Stopped the White House Ballroom Renovation

When bulldozers started tearing down walls on Monday, nobody at the National Capital Planning Commission had even seen a permit application. The commission, usually in charge of all White House plans, has been closed for weeks due to the shutdown. Because it had no record of any permit, it issued a stop-work order on the East Wing demolition. Now, the White House ballroom renovation cannot move forward until the commission reviews its plans.

Missing Permits Spark Alarm

Designer Sarah Boardman spent two days on social media tracking permit records. She found none. Not a single application existed for the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address. She posted screen captures from a public permit website that said, “Attention — There are Notices or Stop Work Orders on this Property.” Boardman pointed out that the planning commission must approve any major work. Since it’s closed, she believes the project was rushed on purpose.

White House officials insist demolition doesn’t need prior approval from the commission. They plan to submit the full renovation plans only after some of the demolition is already done. However, Will Scharf, the Trump-appointed head of the planning commission, has said that new construction always needs the commission’s OK. He distinguishes between tearing down walls and building something new. That makes the gold ballroom project a clear case of new construction.

A Rush That Breaks All the Rules

In a normal renovation of a historic building, planning takes years. First, architects draw detailed plans. Next, agencies review them. Finally, public discussions weigh in. Designer Sarah Boardman says each of these steps usually lasts two to three years. Then there’s hazardous-materials testing. Asbestos removal alone can take six months to a year. Overall, she explains, a public and historic renovation typically takes four to five years from start to finish.

Yet the White House ballroom renovation began in days. Critics call it a “presidential vanity project” and worry about safety. They say detailed vetting of workers and materials won’t happen. In mid-July, President Trump quietly appointed three loyalists to the National Capital Planning Commission. That move raised more eyebrows. Now, people wonder if the quick appointments were meant to ease approval of the ballroom renovation.

Historic Rules Demand Public Review

A leading preservation group wrote a letter demanding a pause. The National Trust for Historic Preservation called on the president to halt demolition. The group said public review is “legally required” for any changes to the White House. It warned that the new structure’s 55,000 square feet would overwhelm the carefully balanced classical design. The letter pointed out that the East and West Wings are smaller and lower by design. A massive new wing could ruin the historic silhouette.

In addition, the trust noted that demolition without a final plan is dangerous. Once old materials come down, walls and support systems may need urgent fixes. Without approved designs, work can pause for months. Public scrutiny and expert analysis usually guide those fixes.

Critics Call It a Vanity Project

Online commentators have been harsh. Many say the White House ballroom renovation is about luxury and gold finishes, not public service. They question why such an opulent project began during a shutdown that furloughed thousands of federal workers. Senator statements and news outlets highlighted the clash between mundane permit rules and powerful political will.

Moreover, some note that President Trump announced earlier this year that the East Wing would stay intact. Yet records and photos prove that demolition crews already breached those walls. This sudden reversal adds to the idea that permits and public notice were sidestepped.

What Happens Next for the Ballroom Renovation?

With the stop-work order in place, all signs point to a long delay. The White House must now file proper permit applications. Then the planning commission will inspect, review, and approve or reject the detailed plans. If public hearings are needed, they could extend the timeline further. Meanwhile, the commission’s three Trump appointees will have to recuse themselves or face claims of bias. Only after firm commission approval can crews return to the East Wing.

In the best-case scenario, the White House finds a fast path through the review process. But even then, asbestos checks and structural surveys must finish. That alone can take months. After that, new construction planning meets contractors and material sourcing. Realistically, the ballroom renovation will stretch well into next year.

Lessons on Planning and Transparency

This incident shows why historic projects need clear rules. Agencies, experts, and the public all play a role in preserving treasured landmarks. Sudden moves without proper review can lead to surprise delays and legal fights. In turn, taxpayers may foot higher bills due to last-minute fixes.

Design professionals like Sarah Boardman stress that patience matters. A well-planned renovation honors both history and safety. It also builds public trust by showing that no one is above the rules.

For now, the White House ballroom renovation is on pause. It serves as a reminder that even the president must wait his turn when city planning rules apply. Only after the National Capital Planning Commission gives a green light will the bulldozers return to tear down walls.

FAQs

What is the stop-work order on the White House ballroom renovation?

A stop-work order is an official notice that all demolition and construction must stop until proper permits are in place.

Why are there no permits for the ballroom project?

The National Capital Planning Commission offices closed during the federal shutdown. The White House did not file any applications before starting work.

Who is Sarah Boardman and what did she find?

Sarah Boardman is a designer who searched public permit records. She found zero applications or approvals for the White House ballroom renovation.

What does the National Trust for Historic Preservation want?

The trust wants a full public review of the project. They warn that a 55,000-square-foot addition could overwhelm the historic White House design.

How long will the renovation take now?

Once permits are filed, experts estimate four to five years for a proper public and historic building renovation. The stop-work order will add months to the timeline.

Trump Slaps Russia Oil Sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil

Reginald Edward
-
0
Trump Slaps Russia Oil Sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil

Key Takeaways

• President Trump announced new Russia oil sanctions on two state firms.
• Sanctions target Rosneft and Lukoil for funding the Kremlin’s war efforts.
• Trump canceled a planned Budapest summit with President Putin.
• Treasury warns it may impose more measures if needed.

 

New Sanctions Explained

At a Wednesday Oval Office press conference, President Trump unveiled tough new Russia oil sanctions. He met with NATO’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, and then took questions from reporters. One reporter asked why he approved actions against two major Russian oil companies: Rosneft and Lukoil. “I just felt it was time,” Trump answered. “We’ve waited a long time. I thought that we’d go long before the Middle East.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added details in a statement. He said Russia oil sanctions will hit Rosneft and Lukoil for funding President Putin’s war machine. Moreover, the Treasury stands ready to impose further measures if necessary. It also encouraged U.S. allies to follow suit and enforce the same steps.

Reasons Behind the Move

Trump pointed to Putin’s “refusal to end this senseless war.” Consequently, the United States decided to pressure Russia’s economy more directly. These Russia oil sanctions cut into the Kremlin’s main revenue stream. Oil exports fund military spending and political control. Therefore, the White House expects this move to squeeze Putin’s budget hard.

Additionally, Trump has praised his record of ending conflicts around the world. He noted past successes in brokering deals and reducing hostilities. However, he said Russia’s latest war crossed a line. Hence, he believes stronger economic penalties are essential. By imposing Russia oil sanctions, the U.S. sends a clear message: aggression brings costs.

Summit Cancellation

During the same news conference, Trump revealed he canceled a planned summit with Putin in Budapest. He said, “It just didn’t feel right to me. It didn’t feel like we were going to get to the place we have to get, so I canceled it.” The sudden move surprised many diplomats. Nonetheless, it underscores the president’s view that Russia must change course before talks resume.

The canceled meeting would have followed months of smaller discussions and shuttle diplomacy. Yet Trump judged that the timing was off. He opted to link any future summit to real progress toward peace. Without tangible signs that Putin will halt aggression, Trump sees no point in face-to-face talks right now.

Impact on Global Relations

Russia oil sanctions do more than tighten U.S.-Russia ties. They also test the unity of Western allies. In his statement, Treasury Secretary Bessent urged NATO members and other partners to join the effort. Some European countries rely heavily on Russian energy. They might face tough decisions on energy security versus standing firm on principles.

Meanwhile, other global powers watch closely. China and India buy significant Russian oil at discounted prices. They may increase purchases if sanctions deepen. Therefore, the full effect of these Russia oil sanctions depends on broad international cooperation. If key buyers resist, Russia could find new markets and mitigate pain.

Economic Consequences for Russia

Oil revenue makes up a large share of Russia’s national budget. By targeting Rosneft and Lukoil, the U.S. hits two of Russia’s largest oil producers. Both companies own pipelines, refineries, and export terminals. Consequently, sanctions can disrupt everything from drilling to sales abroad.

In the short term, Russia might divert more oil to buyers willing to skirt sanctions. Yet this could require cutting prices further. Over time, the lack of access to Western technology may slow production growth. Investors will likely pull back as risk premiums rise. Therefore, Russia oil sanctions carry the potential for deep, lasting damage to the Russian economy.

U.S. Domestic Politics

Back home, the announcement plays into ongoing debates over foreign policy. Trump emphasized his deal-making skills and leadership on the world stage. He contrasted this move with criticism that he has favored Russia in the past. Some lawmakers applauded the sanctions as overdue. Others questioned whether they would hit the right targets.

Furthermore, Trump’s abrupt decision to cancel the summit drew mixed reactions. Supporters admire his instinctual approach. Critics say it undercuts diplomatic norms and leaves allies in the dark. Still, Trump frames it as a sign of strength. He argues that he will not reward aggression with photo ops and handshakes.

Possible Next Steps

Treasury Secretary Bessent warned that more Russia oil sanctions could follow. If Putin refuses to end hostilities, the U.S. could expand measures to other sectors. For instance, banking and technology firms might face new restrictions. Meanwhile, Congress is debating bills to increase pressure on Russia’s defense industry.

In addition, the administration may work with European partners to cut Russia off from global financial systems. That would isolate Moscow further. However, pushing too hard risks energy shortages and higher prices worldwide. Thus, the White House must balance pressure with broader economic stability.

How Allies Might Respond

Some NATO members have already imposed their own sanctions on Russia. Yet most stop short of targeting oil exports directly. Now, they face pressure to deepen those steps. Germany, Italy, and other big buyers must weigh energy needs versus geopolitical goals. They could seek alternative suppliers or speed up green energy projects.

Likewise, Mediterranean and Baltic states might bolster sanctions if the U.S. leads. Ultimately, success hinges on collective action. If the EU and Britain enforce strong measures, Russia oil sanctions will bite harder. Conversely, a split front could let Moscow exploit gaps.

Will Russia Strike Back?

Kremlin officials have not yet detailed retaliation plans. Historically, Russia has used energy cutoffs and cyberattacks to respond. It could block gas flows to Europe or hike prices for certain buyers. Moreover, Moscow might sanction U.S. businesses in Russia or impose trade barriers.

Still, Russia risks damaging its own economy by overplaying its hand. Therefore, both sides face a dangerous game of escalation. So far, Trump believes U.S. leverage outweighs Russia’s. He expects Putin to rethink his strategy or face worsening hardship at home.

Looking Ahead

In the coming weeks, the world will watch how markets react. Oil prices may rise if supply tightens. Companies might shift trade routes or diversify sources. Politicians in Europe could accelerate talks on energy independence.

Meanwhile, U.S. senators and representatives will debate further actions. Some push for bipartisan backing of tougher sanctions. Others call for clearer exit conditions. In any case, Russia oil sanctions mark a key step in U.S. policy toward Russia’s war.

Ultimately, Trump tied his sanctions move to his broader goal: ending conflicts peacefully. He hopes that by squeezing Russia’s finances, Putin will agree to a ceasefire. Whether that happens remains uncertain. For now, the bold step shows that economic tools remain central to U.S. strategy.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly are Russia oil sanctions?

Russia oil sanctions are U.S. measures that limit trade with Russian oil companies. They aim to cut off funds that support military actions.

Which companies face these sanctions?

The new steps target two state-owned giants, Rosneft and Lukoil. They rank among Russia’s largest oil producers.

How might these sanctions affect global oil prices?

Prices could rise if Russia cannot sell oil at previous volumes. Yet new buyers or increased output elsewhere may offset the change.

Could these sanctions end the conflict?

Sanctions add pressure but do not guarantee peace. They work best with diplomatic efforts and allied support.

Why Democrats Clash Over Government Shutdown

Reginald Edward
-
0
Why Democrats Clash Over Government Shutdown

Key takeaways

  • Democrats are divided over the current government shutdown.
  • Senator Fetterman calls it “fundamentally wrong,” even when his party leads Congress.
  • House Minority Whip Katherine Clark says this shutdown is unlike past ones.
  • The fight could reshape Fetterman’s primary and Democratic unity.

In a rare moment, a Democrat publicly broke from his party over a government shutdown. Senator John Fetterman from Pennsylvania said shutting down the government is “fundamentally wrong.” He stood up for millions relying on food aid and health subsidies. Yet his own party rival, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, strongly disagreed. She argued this shutdown is not like any before. Instead, she blamed the White House and Speaker Mike Johnson for using budgets as a “private slush fund.” Now Democrats face a test of unity as they square off in public.

Key Facts About the Government Shutdown Dispute

  • John Fetterman worries about 2 million people on food stamps and 420,000 on health subsidies.
  • He urged keeping the government open and extending aid programs.
  • Katherine Clark said the current president has warped the budget process from day one.
  • Clark claimed Republicans in charge of the House and White House forced the shutdown.
  • This split could hurt Fetterman in a tough Democratic primary.

Why this government shutdown is different

Most past shutdowns began when one party held the White House and the other controlled Congress. Back then, both sides agreed to reopen quickly. However, this time both chambers of Congress and the White House are in Republican hands. Therefore, Democrats argue it is unfair to blame them for the pain caused by closing federal services.

Furthermore, Clark pointed out that this administration has twisted the budget to reward favored programs. She noted that the president cut special education funding last year. Many parents and teachers rely on that money. By contrast, past presidents honored the line items Congress approved.

In addition, the shutdown now directly threatens benefits for seniors, veterans, and children. Clark warned that Republicans want to slash these programs to pay for tax cuts. She called that strategy “callous” and “cruel.” As a result, Democrats feel pressured to fight back even as they debate tactics.

Fetterman breaks ranks

Senator Fetterman pressed CNN anchor Brianna Keilar about the human cost of a shutdown. He stressed the hardship for families on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. He also highlighted the 420,000 Pennsylvanians who receive Affordable Care Act subsidies. “It’s fundamentally wrong to shut the government down,” Fetterman said. “I don’t care if it’s Republicans or my own party doing it.”

This stance shocked many Democrats. Earlier this year, the party united against shutdowns when Republicans held power. Now Fetterman’s comments appear to break that bond. He has a reputation for siding with President Trump on some issues. That history makes his critics wonder if he is trying to shift his image ahead of a tough primary.

Some Democrats praise Fetterman’s honesty. They say he speaks for voters tired of political standoffs. Yet others worry he undercuts party leverage in budget talks. They fear his dissent could weaken collective bargaining power. Overall, his remarks have stirred debate about loyalty, principle, and political tactics.

Clark’s strong response

When asked if she agreed with Fetterman, Katherine Clark did not hold back. She said this shutdown is “not like any in recent history.” According to Clark, the president treats the federal budget as a “private slush fund.” She accused him of stripping money from programs he dislikes. Then he redirects it to pet projects.

Clark highlighted the Education Department cuts as proof. She pointed to devastating drops in special education funding. Many students with disabilities lost critical support. Parents and teachers felt the impact in classrooms across America.

Moreover, she blamed Speaker Mike Johnson for refusing to compromise. “He has shut down the House,” Clark said. “He does not care about federal workers, SNAP programs, or health care.” To her, demanding billions in cuts while holding the budget hostage is unacceptable.

Clark argued that when Republicans control all branches of government, they bear responsibility. She called the idea that Democrats caused this shutdown “preposterous.” Then she accused them of using health care and food aid as bargaining chips to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Finally, she criticized the president for talking about building a ballroom at the White House amid the crisis.

What comes next

As the stalemate drags on, both sides face tough choices. Republicans hold the power to reopen government. Yet they also want to pass deep budget cuts. Democrats have little leverage to force them back to talks. Meanwhile, public frustration grows as federal workers miss paychecks and vital programs sit idle.

Senator Fetterman may face pressure in his own party. His bid for re-election could be harder if Democratic voters see him as too willing to break ranks. On the other hand, Clark’s fiery defense of social programs might boost her standing among progressives.

For now, the government shutdown remains the focal point. Each side hopes the other caves first. Until a deal is struck, millions wait in limbo. Certainly, this dispute has shown deep divisions among Democrats—and raised questions about how Congress should protect its people when budgets collide with politics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main cause of the government shutdown?

The shutdown began because Congress and the White House could not agree on budget cuts and funding levels for key programs.

Why did Senator Fetterman oppose his party on the shutdown?

He argued any shutdown harms vulnerable people who depend on food stamps and health subsidies.

How does Katherine Clark defend her party’s stance?

She says this shutdown is driven by Republican control of Congress and the White House, not by Democrats.

Could this dispute affect Fetterman’s re-election?

Yes. His break with party lines could make his primary race tougher against fellow Democrats.

What do Democrats want to happen next?

Most Democrats want Republicans to reopen the government without deep cuts to social programs.

Indiana Gerrymander Battle Heats Up

Reginald Edward
-
0
Indiana Gerrymander Battle Heats Up

Key takeaways

• Indiana Republicans can’t agree on redrawing districts mid-decade
• Senate leader Rodric Bray says they don’t have enough votes
• Trump and Vice President Vance push for an Indiana gerrymander
• Lt. Gov. Beckwith publicly slams Senate Republicans
• The gerrymander fight exposes deep party divides

Indiana Republicans have fallen into harsh public fights. Tensions rose because party leaders can’t secure enough support. They want to eliminate two Democratic districts in a mid-decade redraw. That push has turned into a messy feud at the statehouse.

Political Clash Over Indiana Gerrymander

The state Senate President Pro Tempore, Rodric Bray, spoke out on Wednesday. He said Republicans still lack votes for a mid-decade gerrymander. He noted that Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina used similar moves. However, several GOP lawmakers in Indiana want to keep the current maps. Bray’s spokeswoman told reporters, “The votes aren’t there for redistricting.”

Meanwhile, the entire Republican congressional delegation and Governor Mike Braun back the plan. President Trump joined the effort, sending Vice President JD Vance to lobby lawmakers. They want to redraw maps in order to flip two Democratic seats. Yet, the Senate remains divided over the controversial proposal.

Mudslinging Among Indiana Republicans

Frustration gave way to public attacks this week. Allies of President Trump say they can still win over holdouts. They stress that a gerrymander will help deliver a solid GOP map. In response, Braun’s office claimed his talks remain “positive.” They insist most Indiana Republicans will support “fair representation in Congress.”

However, Lt. Governor Micah Beckwith delivered the most intense remarks. He accused Senate Republicans of cowardice and betrayal. Beckwith wrote that Indiana voters did not elect a “supermajority” to sit silent. He blasted them for allegedly letting conservative ideas die in the Senate. Then he urged colleagues to “find your backbone” and approve a 9-0 map. He promised to challenge any reputation that the Senate is too weak.

What Makes This Indiana Gerrymander So Contentious?

Redistricting usually happens after each census. Yet, a mid-decade gerrymander would redraw maps within ten years. That tactic faces heavy criticism. Critics call it a power grab meant to lock in party control. Moreover, opponents worry it will silence minority voices and harm fair elections.

Supporters argue the current maps unfairly help Democrats in Indiana. They say an Indiana gerrymander will give Hoosiers “equal voice” in Congress. Also, they believe a fresh map better reflects recent population shifts. However, many GOP senators see risks. They fear voter backlash in future races. They also worry about legal challenges that could tie up results for years.

Key Players in the Fight

• Rodric Bray – He leads the Senate Republicans. He says votes for a gerrymander aren’t there.
• Mike Braun – The governor supports the mid-decade redraw. He backs a “fair” map.
• President Donald Trump – He wants two Democratic districts removed.
• Vice President JD Vance – He recently traveled to Indiana to lobby senators.
• Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith – He blasted holdout senators with strong language.

How a Gerrymander Could Change Indiana’s Politics

If the Indiana gerrymander passes, Republicans could redraw two Democratic seats. The plan aims for a 9-0 GOP sweep in the U.S. House. That would shift power in Congress away from Democrats. Yet, the move risks alienating moderate voters. It could also spark lawsuits over gerrymandering laws. Legal battles would delay map approval and cost taxpayers money.

Moreover, public opinion may turn against lawmakers who back the scheme. Surveys show many Hoosiers view gerrymandering as unfair. They want maps drawn by a neutral commission, not by career politicians. Consequently, some Republicans hesitate to embrace the proposal. They fear voter anger at what seems like election rigging.

Next Steps in the Indiana Gerrymander Showdown

The Senate plans more hearings in the coming weeks. Lawmakers will debate legal rules and voter impact studies. Party leaders hope to rally enough support before the next legislative session. Meanwhile, pro-gerrymander forces will keep pressuring holdout senators. They plan visits, phone calls, and public appeals.

On the other side, critics will highlight stories of how gerrymanders silence communities. They will hold town halls to raise voter awareness. They may even push for a ballot measure to ban mid-decade redraws. As tensions rise, each side will look for new allies in the media and in local government.

What’s at Stake for Hoosiers

At its core, this fight will shape Indiana’s political voice. A gerrymander could lock in GOP power for years. Yet, failing to redraw could leave districts unchanged until after the next census. That may frustrate those who feel current maps underrepresent fast-growing areas.

In any case, the Indiana gerrymander battle will have lasting effects. It will test party unity and voter trust. It will also set a precedent for other states considering mid-decade redraws. Therefore, Indiana’s decision matters far beyond its borders.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a mid-decade gerrymander?

It means redrawing voting districts more than five years after the census. Critics say it lets politicians pick their own voters.

Why do some Indiana Republicans oppose this gerrymander?

They worry about voter backlash and legal challenges. They fear it will seem unfair and harm future elections.

What did Lt. Governor Beckwith say about the Senate?

He accused them of cowardice and betrayal. He urged them to approve a 9-0 GOP map immediately.

Could this fight end in the courts?

Yes. Opponents may sue over unfair district lines. A court battle could delay new maps by months or years.

Could a Second Civil War Erupt in America?

Reginald Edward
-
0
Could a Second Civil War Erupt in America?

Key Takeaways:

• British readers worry a second civil war could break out in the US if tensions rise.
• President Trump blames the “radical left” for most political violence after Charlie Kirk’s killing.
• Experts say a full civil war is unlikely but expect smaller armed uprisings.
• The Insurrection Act could let Trump deploy federal troops against civilians.
• A disputed election result may spark armed clashes if leaders refuse to accept defeat.

Many people in Britain now half-expect a civil war in the United States if political tempers flare more. They follow news of violent attacks on lawmakers and homes of governors with growing alarm. They also watch President Trump using harsh words against his opponents, blaming the “radical left” for unrest. Yet experts say we are more likely to face smaller armed uprisings than a full-scale civil war. Still, they warn that continued hate and chaos could push America into dangerous territory.

The Rise in Political Violence and Civil War Talk

Across America, violence has escalated. In Minnesota, attackers stormed legislative offices. In April, someone set fire to the home of Pennsylvania’s governor. These incidents alarmed people on both sides of the Atlantic. Moreover, the assassination of a high-profile activist sparked demands to end political bloodshed. However, President Trump seized on that killing to justify sending troops into cities such as Chicago and Portland. He even threatened to invade New York City. Consequently, Britain’s press began to float the idea of a second civil war in America.

Trump’s Moves and the Insurrection Act: Civil War Risks

President Trump has threatened to use the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops for domestic policing. This law lets the president call in the military to suppress “insurrection” or rebellion. Critics say Trump may paint any protest as an insurrection. Then he could flood American streets with soldiers. As a result, peaceful demonstrations might turn violent. Indeed, Illinois’s governor accused Trump of a deliberate plan: cause chaos, fire tear gas at protesters and then claim the streets are unsafe. That would give him the excuse to send in troops. If he does, some worry it could spin into the first official use of US troops against US citizens since the Civil War.

Experts See Limited Uprisings, Not a Civil War

Despite growing fears, many analysts doubt a full civil war will break out. A senior fellow at a major think tank notes that modern definitions require at least 1,000 deaths for a conflict to count as a civil war. He argues America is more likely to see something like the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. That was a two-year uprising by hundreds of armed farmers. It ended with some casualties but stayed far below modern civil war levels. Therefore, experts expect scattered acts of violence. They may not fit neat labels of left or right. Instead, small groups might attack targets they see as “enemy” without forming large armies on battlefields.

What Could Spark Armed Conflict?

One key risk is a dispute over election results. A professor of political sociology warns that if Republicans refuse to accept a loss, decentralized networks might take up arms. They could threaten Democratic lawmakers or minority communities they label as “un-American.” If senior Republicans fail to condemn such violence, the situation could spiral. In fact, Britain’s concern stems from seeing political leaders feed anger and fear. Therefore, an election standoff may be the spark that lights a broader clash.

British Views on US Stability

British readers have long watched America’s ups and downs from across the ocean. Yet recent events have pushed their worries into the open. They know about arson attacks, threats against politicians, and deadly street clashes. Now they hear a US president call for troops in American cities. Meanwhile, news outlets in London and Manchester run opinion pieces on whether the country can hold together. Their view of American democracy, once rock solid, feels shaky. This shift in tone shows how global observers see US turmoil as a test of the world’s biggest democracy.

What Comes Next for America?

America stands at a crossroads. On one hand, leaders could dial down the hate, call for calm, and respect democratic rules. On the other, they might stoke fear, use federal troops against citizens, and refuse to accept electoral defeat. Continued harsh rhetoric would fuel violence. Moreover, legal battles over the Insurrection Act could give presidents wide powers to crush protests. As a result, even small clashes could spread rapidly. Yet there is still time to steer clear of a civil war. Peaceful dialogue, strong institutions, and shared respect for democracy remain America’s best defense against a new armed struggle.

FAQs

Will the Insurrection Act really let a president send troops to US cities?

The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy federal forces during rebellion or unrest. Courts could allow broad interpretations, making it possible to deploy troops against civilians if protests are deemed dangerous.

Could protests over an election result lead to a civil war?

A mass refusal to accept election results could spark isolated armed clashes. Yet experts believe these would be small uprisings rather than a full-scale civil war with thousands of battlefield deaths.

What might trigger large-scale violence in the US?

Key triggers include violent rhetoric from leaders, armed attacks on political opponents, refusal to concede elections, and use of federal troops against peaceful protesters. Combined, these factors could create a cycle of violence.

How worried are experts about US unity?

Experts caution that while a full civil war is unlikely, sporadic armed unrest is possible. They stress that strong democratic norms and quick condemnation of violence are vital to keep the peace.

Why Comey Challenges U.S. Attorney Appointment

Reginald Edward
-
0
Why Comey Challenges U.S. Attorney Appointment

Key Takeaways

• Former FBI Director James Comey is challenging Lindsey Halligan’s interim U.S. attorney appointment in Virginia.
• Federal law limits interim U.S. attorneys to 120 days unless the Senate confirms them or judges extend their term.
• Similar cases in New Jersey and Los Angeles failed after they exceeded the 120-day limit.
• Comey argues these moves undermine the rule of law and asks the court to remove Halligan.

Former FBI Director James Comey filed a court challenge to stop Lindsey Halligan’s interim U.S. attorney appointment in Virginia. He says she was never confirmed by the Senate, making her rise to power unlawful. Moreover, he points to other cases where interim prosecutors exceeded the allowed time. If the court agrees, Halligan must step down.

How the U.S. Attorney Appointment Rule Works

Under federal law, an interim U.S. attorney serves only 120 days. After that, the Senate must confirm a nominee. If the Senate does not act, district judges may appoint someone instead. However, the judge’s appointment also has limits and must follow strict rules. These rules protect the Senate’s power to vet top prosecutors. Without a confirmed U.S. attorney appointment, federal cases could face delays or challenges.

Past Battles Over Interim Jobs

In New Jersey, Alina Habba reached the 120-day limit. To keep her in office, the Trump administration renamed her “Special Attorney” under a different statute. A federal judge later ruled that move unlawful and removed her.

In Los Angeles, Bill Essayli also passed his 120 days. He spoke on a far-right show and hinted at legal tricks to stay on the job. A legal expert called his comments “unwise public boasting.” Courts have since challenged his U.S. attorney appointment, just like Habba’s.

Comey’s Challenge in Virginia

Comey’s lawyers argue that Halligan’s appointment mirrors these past mistakes. They say she took office without Senate approval and now faces the same 120-day deadline. By pointing to New Jersey and Los Angeles, Comey wants the court to rule her service unlawful. As he puts it, allowing these shortcuts harms the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent.

What’s at Stake

If Halligan must leave, it could disrupt federal court work in Virginia. Ongoing investigations and prosecutions might stall. Moreover, a court victory for Comey would reinforce the Senate’s role in U.S. attorney appointment. It would also warn future administrations against by-passing Senate approval. In addition, it would remind judges to watch interim appointments closely.

Why the Senate’s Role Matters

The Constitution gives the President power to nominate U.S. attorneys. The Senate must hold hearings and vote. This process ensures transparency and accountability. Skipping it weakens checks and balances. Moreover, public trust in federal prosecutors can fall if leaders seem to dodge proper vetting.

Lessons from Habba and Essayli

These cases show that creative work-arounds often fail. Courts have struck down attempts to extend interim terms. Judges insist on following the statute’s plain text. In fact, when officials try to twist the rules, judges have acted swiftly. Thus, future administrations should heed these rulings before moving forward.

How the Court Could Decide

The court will review federal law and past decisions. It will weigh whether Halligan’s appointment violated the 120-day rule. If the judge sides with Comey, the district court or Senate must pick a new U.S. attorney. Conversely, if the court allows Halligan to stay, it could open the door to more creative appointments. Either way, the decision will matter for other pending and future cases.

What Happens Next

First, the court will set a hearing date. Both sides will present arguments. Comey’s team will cite the Habba and Essayli rulings. The Justice Department will defend Halligan’s appointment. After the hearing, the judge may issue a ruling quickly. If Halligan must step down, the district court judges could appoint a replacement or wait for a Senate‐confirmed nominee.

FAQs

Why did Comey challenge Halligan’s appointment?

Comey argues Halligan served beyond the 120-day limit without Senate approval, making her interim U.S. attorney appointment unlawful.

What is the 120-day rule?

Federal law allows interim U.S. attorneys to serve only 120 days. After that, the Senate must confirm or district judges must appoint a successor.

How did New Jersey and Los Angeles cases influence Comey’s fight?

In New Jersey, a judge removed Alina Habba after she passed 120 days. In Los Angeles, courts challenged Bill Essayli for the same reason. Comey used these examples to support his case.

What could the court ruling mean for future appointments?

A ruling for Comey would reinforce Senate confirmation power and limit creative appointment tactics. A ruling against him could invite new work-arounds for interim U.S. attorney appointments.

Why Lindsey Halligan Recruits Out-of-State Prosecutors

Reginald Edward
-
0
Why Lindsey Halligan Recruits Out-of-State Prosecutors

 

Key takeaways:

  • Lindsey Halligan tapped prosecutors from Missouri and North Carolina for high-profile cases.
  • No one from her own office in Virginia signed on to help.
  • Legal experts question her hiring choices and case strength.
  • Critics call the prosecutions politically driven and flawed.
  • The moves may signal trouble finding local support for these cases.

Introduction

Lindsey Halligan leads two major prosecutions in the Eastern District of Virginia. One targets former FBI Director James Comey. The other goes after New York Attorney General Letitia James. Surprisingly, she hired lawyers from Missouri and North Carolina. Yet no one in her own Virginia office agreed to help. This odd move has drawn fresh criticism. It also raises questions about the legal soundness of her cases.

Why Lindsey Halligan Turned to Non-Local Prosecutors

Lindsey Halligan has almost no experience as a federal prosecutor. However, she now runs two high-stakes cases. Instead of tapping her own team, she hired four out-of-state lawyers. Roger Keller comes from Missouri. Two others work in North Carolina. Not one Virginia prosecutor signed the filings.

This choice struck many observers as odd. After all, the Eastern District of Virginia has plenty of skilled lawyers. Moreover, federal prosecutors usually recruit from within their own office. Attorney Tracey Gallagher called it baffling. She said Halligan “couldn’t prosecute a ham sandwich.” Legal expert Lisa Rubin noted that hiring North Carolina lawyers might link to the same appellate circuit. Yet Missouri remains a mystery.

As a result, some worry Halligan lacks local support. No one wants their name on these controversial filings. This may reflect low confidence in the cases. After all, experts widely call these prosecutions politically motivated. Additionally, Halligan made basic errors in her court documents. Therefore, local lawyers likely saw high risk and little reward.

How Lindsey Halligan’s Hires Spark Criticism

Critics quickly pointed out the odd hires. Mediaite editor Sarah Rumpf noted that Virginia has no shortage of lawyers. Yet Halligan seems unable to find any willing to back her. This fuels talk that the Department of Justice struggles to staff retributive prosecutions.

Moreover, seasoned prosecutors may fear harm to their careers. Signing off on a case that many see as weak or biased can carry big consequences. It can also hurt a lawyer’s reputation in Washington and beyond. Therefore, local EDVA attorneys likely steered clear.

At the same time, political critics use the hiring issue to attack Halligan. They say it proves her cases lack merit. They argue she uses political power to bully opponents. However, Halligan and her supporters deny any improper motives. They point out that federal prosecutors can recruit help from anywhere. They also stress that experienced lawyers from other districts can add fresh expertise.

Meanwhile, public trust in these cases remains low. Polls show many Americans doubt the fairness of these prosecutions. Hence, Halligan’s reliance on outsiders adds fuel to the fire. It reinforces the idea that these cases exist for politics, not justice.

The Stakes in the Comey and James Cases

Both cases carry high stakes. The Comey case involves allegations of personal document mishandling. It charges him with taking personal diaries and notes from the FBI. Critics say the case is weak. They point out that many FBI leaders kept similar documents. They also argue that Comey acted within his rights.

The Letitia James case accuses her of failing to turn over subpoena records. Prosecutors claim she withheld financial disclosure forms. Yet legal experts question whether the law applies this way. They see the case as a response to her investigations of the former president.

If Halligan wins either case, it could reshape political norms. It would signal that federal officials face prosecution for actions tied to political roles. On the other hand, a loss could mark a major setback. It could also weaken Halligan’s standing and that of her political backers.

What This Means for the Eastern District of Virginia

The EDVA has long seen high-priority cases. Yet it also prides itself on being a merit-based office. Local prosecutors gain respect by working on complex matters. They rarely handle cases tied so visibly to political vendettas.

Halligan’s staffing choices may harm the office’s reputation. It suggests a top-down push rather than organic case selection. Moreover, it raises concerns about morale. Local attorneys may feel pushed aside or pressured to join.

Furthermore, the situation highlights broader tensions at the Justice Department. Balancing independence with political oversight remains tricky. When political appointees install inexperienced leaders, frictions follow. Career prosecutors often resist moves that seem unwise or unfair.

Halligan’s approach may also influence future hiring. If cases keep relying on outsiders, the EDVA could lose talent. Ambitious lawyers want to work on strong, respected cases. They also seek mentorship and growth in their home office.

What Comes Next

Lindsey Halligan now faces two looming deadlines. Courts will weigh motions and decide whether the cases proceed. If judges dismiss charges, her choices will look even more questionable. On the other hand, a win could vindicate her recruits.

In the meantime, her hiring moves stay in the spotlight. More scrutiny could reveal additional staffing oddities. It may also prompt reviews of how political cases receive their staffing. Some members of Congress already call for oversight hearings.

As this story unfolds, it will reveal much about modern justice. It shows how politics can reshape a federal office. It also highlights the career risks lawyers face when they join controversial prosecutions. Finally, it raises one core question: should a prosecutor look beyond her borders when no local partner will help?

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Lindsey Halligan?

Lindsey Halligan is a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia. She handles high-profile cases against James Comey and Letitia James.

Why did she hire out-of-state prosecutors?

She tapped lawyers from Missouri and North Carolina. Local prosecutors appear unwilling to lend their names to these controversial cases.

What do critics say about her cases?

Critics call the cases politically motivated and legally weak. They point to basic errors in Halligan’s filings and question her choices.

Could these cases affect federal hiring practices?

Yes. If the Department of Justice relies more on outsiders for political cases, it could change how federal offices staff high-stakes matters.

1...789...2,014Page 8 of 2,014