Tierney_j1gbg4

Tierney Sneed

Tierney Sneed is a reporter for Talking Points Memo. She previously worked for U.S. News and World Report. She grew up in Florida and attended Georgetown University.

Articles by

Among the exhibits special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors might present at the Virginia trial for Paul Manafort, which is set to begin next week, are photos of a putting green at his Hamptons home, records pertaining to the $1 million he allegedly spent on antique rugs, his Yankees season tickets, and emails among his associates about his work in Ukraine.

Mueller’s team Wednesday submitted its exhibit list for the trial. It reads like a recap of Manafort’s allegedly lavish lifestyle that was described in the grand jury indictments handed down in D.C. and Virginia.

In the Virginia case, the former Trump campaign chairman is facing charges of tax fraud and bank fraud — fraud Mueller has alleged continued through 2016. Manafort has pleaded not guilty.

Read the exhibit list below:

Read More →

If the Supreme Court wants to start dismantling Roe v. Wade, it can begin almost immediately after Justice Anthony Kennedy’s successor is confirmed, which means abortion rights groups are girding for political and legal battle across dozens of states unlike anything seen in the last 45 years.

The retirement of Kennedy this month is the biggest threat in decades to the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe decision, which legalized abortion nationwide. As President Trump himself promised during the campaign, the “pro-life” justices he would choose could lead to a Roe reversal “automatically.” There are indications that appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s choice for Kennedy’s seat, fits this mold.

If the Supreme Court was feeling bold, it could use any abortion case to overturn Roe and say that abortion is not a right enshrined into the Constitution. A number of states have so-called “trigger laws” that would ban or severely curtail abortion immediately if Roe was reversed.

Or the Supreme Court could take a more incremental approach, not reversing Roe outright, but giving states wider and wider latitude to impose restrictions on the procedure, until it is simply inaccessible for millions of women in red states, and particularly those of lower income status.

Regardless, what had been a deliberate and strategic battle by abortion opponents aiming narrowly at Kennedy’s vote is about to expand to an all-out war, and they are already well poised to take it to the Supreme Court’s doorstep.

Abortion law experts estimate that there are some four dozen abortion cases already in the legal pipeline, and more than a dozen of them at the appeals court stage.

“Anyone who cares about abortion rights should be watching every single case that’s in the federal courts right now,” David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University, told TPM.

Gestational Bans

If the Supreme Court wants to take on Roe in the starkest of terms, there are plenty of states willing to send up bans on abortion very early in the pregnancy that would allow the court to do so.

Case Western University Law Professor Jessie Hill, who’s litigated cases in favor of abortion rights, pointed to fetal heartbeat abortion bans, which she said are “meant to be direct challenges to Roe v. Wade.”

Such prohibitions on abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected typically fall around six weeks in the pregnancy, which for many women is before they know they’re even pregnant.

A judge just last month temporarily blocked Iowa’s fetal heartbeat six-week abortion ban that was passed by the state in early May. Previously, North Dakota in 2013 passed a six-week ban that was struck down by courts.

Other states have sought to ban abortions at 12 weeks in laws that were later rejected by courts, while many states have passed 20-week abortion bans — meant to bait Kennedy into an anti-abortion ruling —  though abortion rights proponents have been less inclined to bring lawsuits challenging those.

A similarly bold approach would be to send up to the Supreme Court so-called “personhood” laws, which seek to give fetuses from the moment of conception the same legal rights as persons.

Such a bill was introduced just this year in Ohio, where the legislation would have banned abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. Other states have tried and failed to get personhood measures on the books, or have seen their personhood measures struck down by courts.

Method bans

States have shown a willingness to ban abortions based on the method being used, rather than by the gestational point of pregnancy. Such an approach, depending on the law, would have the effect of banning abortion in a large number of cases.

A dilation and evacuation ban — commonly referred to as a “D and E” ban — is one such example. The method is extremely common after 12 weeks of pregnancy, and for a large part of the second trimester there would “no other method available,” according to Elizabeth Nash, an expert on state policy for the Guttmacher Institute.

“That’s a really big conflict with Roe,” she said.

Alabama’s D and E ban was ruled unconstitutional last year by a federal judge, as was Texas‘.

“That is the only way you can get an abortion in Alabama,” Jennifer Dalven, director of ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told TPM. “You can call it a method ban, but in essence its the same as a 15-week-ban.”

Alabama’s case is a little farther along procedurally — an appeals court heard arguments on the law earlier this year, while Texas’ appeals court arguments aren’t yet scheduled — but both are not far off from Supreme Court’s potential consideration. Mississippi’s version of the law was temporarily blocked by a judge this year, and other states have sought to outlaw the procedure.

Reason Bans

Bans targeting certain reasons that women seek an abortion may not ban the procedure outright, but if sanctioned by the Supreme Court could open the floodgates for politicians to determine why a woman can or cannot end her pregnancy.

“It’s no longer the woman’s decision based on her reasons,” Dalven said. “It would give the politicians the ability to say, ‘These reasons I approve of and you can have abortion, but other reasons are not acceptable.’”

An Indiana law signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence in 2016 that prohibits abortions sought due to a potential disability detected in the fetus was ruled unconstitutional by an appeals court in April. The deadline for that decision to be appealed to the Supreme Court is in September.

Ohio has a similar case, stemming from a 2017 law banning abortions after prenatal test indicating a likelihood of Down syndrome, that it is appealing to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, after a district court temporarily blocked it this spring.

Clinic Restrictions

Justice Kennedy gave liberals a key fifth vote in striking down overly cumbersome clinic regulations in the 2016 case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which established that a “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion” was an undue burden on abortion.

The decision was key in instructing courts to weigh evidence that the clinic restrictions —  often called “targeted regulation of abortion providers” or TRAP laws — would actually further women’s health against evidence that the restrictions sought to impede access to the procedure.

There are multiple cases percolating, including in Indiana, Texas and Virginia, that would allow the Supreme Court to revisit that standard, now that the liberal block has lost Kennedy’s vote.

“Because there is so much room for interpretation about what Whole Woman’s Heath does and doesn’t require, that’s a whole area that the court could just easily change direction on without overruling Roe and without looking like it’s doing anything too radical,” Hill said.

While the strategy might look like a more moderated approach, it could still have devastating affects on women’s access to the procedure, particularly among lower income women.

An appeals court last year sided with Arkansas in one such case, where the state is defending its requirement that medication abortion providers have admitting privileges with hospitals. (Admitting privileges were among the Texas regulations struck down in Whole Woman’s Health). The Supreme Court in May declined an opportunity to take up the case — where the law stands to close two of the Alabama’s three clinics — while the lawsuit continues at the lower court level.

In other cases, according to Nash, states are seeking to get around Whole Woman’s Health by arguing that the issue is fetal health, rather than the woman’s health, which was the focus of the 2016 case.

Another subset of TRAP laws gaining momentum are fetal tissue disposal regulations requiring burials or cremations of the tissue. Such a requirement is currently being litigated in Texas — where a trial is underway — and was also among the provisions in the Indiana law struck down earlier this year.

Read More →

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Wednesday denied former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s request that evidence obtained from a July raid on his Virginia residence be thrown out for the upcoming trial.

“Given the nature of the investigation, the warrant was not too broad in scope,” Jackson said in her opinion, while also rejecting specifically the arguments Manafort made about the material sought on Manafort’s electronic devices.

“And, even if the Court could find fault with the warrant application if it were reviewing it in the first instance, the agents relied in good faith on a warrant signed by a United States Magistrate Judge,” she said.

Manafort lost a similar request he made in his case in Virginia, and in both cases he has been denied requests that evidence from a search of his storage unit be thrown out. He is facing charges of money laundering, failure to disclose foreign lobbying, bank fraud and tax fraud. He has pleaded not guilty. The trial in Virginia begins next week, and his D.C. case is scheduled for trial in September.

Read Jackson’s opinion on the residence search evidence below:

Read More →

A federal magistrate in Washington D.C. Wednesday ordered Mariia Butina held in detention until her trial on charges of failing to register as an agent of Russia and conspiring against the United States.

Butina also pleaded not guilty during the preliminary hearing. She was indicted by a federal grand jury in the nation’s capital Tuesday following her arrest there Sunday.

Federal prosecutors argued that Butina was an “extreme flight risk” who should not be allowed to go free pending trial. The government, represented by Erik Kerenson, argued in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson that if Butina went to a Russian embassy or was picked by a diplomatic car, there would be nothing law enforcement could do about it, and Russia also could legally provide her with a passport that would allow her to leaved the country.

Butina, represented by Robert Driscoll, was seeking to be released on bail, and contended that she had already been cooperating with various inquiries prior to her arrest.

After the hearing, Driscoll told reporters that he respected but disagreed with the court’s order.

“She’s been aware of a criminal investigation into her conduct for months and made no attempt to flee, nor has the government, which has had her under surveillance for the entire time, alleged that she has,” he said. “We remain confident that she will prevail in this case”

Driscoll told the court that she had been contacted by the Senate Intelligence Committee in the fall of 2017 and testified before the committee for eight hours in April behind closed doors. She also provided the committee with some 8,000 pages of documents, Driscoll said.

Driscoll also revealed that that in March 2018 the Federal Election Commission inquired with her about certain contributions.

FBI agents searched Butina’s residence on April 25, Driscoll said, adding that she and her attorneys were present for the search.

He said that her attorneys then reached out to the U.S. Attorney in South Dakota, which was referenced in the search warrants for her home, to offer them information.

Kerenson countered this claim by arguing that Butina’s offer was to assist in a fraud investigation into an individual referred to in court docs as U.S. person 1. To his knowledge, he said she was never told that she was the subject of the investigation.

U.S person 1 is, based on corroborating details, believed to be Paul Erickson, a South Dakota-based longtime GOP operative. Later in the hearing Driscoll referenced that Butina’s boyfriend lived in South Dakota, and that Butina this summer planned to move with him.

Kerenson’s presentation to the judge went through some of the details in a motion the government filed ahead of the hearing, but he also made new claims about her activities in the U.S. He said it was “absurd” for her attorneys to claim she was simply in the United States as a student.

He recounted an alleged December 2014 text exchange Butina had with whom Kerenson desribed as a wealthy Russian businessman. The businessman told Butina that he wanted her to work in the United States, according to the prosecutor, “not go on a tourist trip.”

He described alleged notes found on a thumb drive obtained at U.S. Person 1’s residence, under a folder titled “Maria Butina” that referenced laying a “groundwork,” according to Kerenson, to influence high-level politicians.

Kerenson presented a photo, referenced in the court docs and exhibited for the courtroom, of Butina with a male individual he described as a suspected Russian intel operative. Driscoll argued that Butina was unaware of the individual’s ties to the FSB, Russia’s security agency, and said that they were simply two Russian nationals sharing a meal.

After Driscoll claimed that there was no evidence that Butina had ever visited the Russian embassy or been in a diplomatic car, Kerenson alleged the existence of a photograph of Butina with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Driscoll argued that Kislyak was already the former ambassador when the photograph, at a movie screening at a Russian cultural center, was taken.

Read More →

Lawyers for Andrew Miller, a former Roger Stone aide who is fighting a grand jury subpoena in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, as well as at least five attorneys from Mueller’s team spent nearly an hour and a half Wednesday in the D.C. courtroom of Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell.

The two defense attorneys, when exiting the courtroom at a little before 11 a.m. ET, confirmed they were representing Miller but would not say anything more about what happened behind closed doors or why they were there.

They had entered Howell’s courtroom around 9:30 a.m. ET, a few minutes after a handful of Mueller prosecutors entered the courtroom. Reporters were not allowed to enter the closed courtroom.

Among the members of Mueller’s team TPM spotted were Michael Dreeben, Elizabeth Prelogar and Adam Jed.

Miller’s attorneys had last month sought to quash the subpoena, Politico reported. His appearance in front of Mueller’s grand jury was postponed, according to the Politico report, with lawyers from Mueller’s team offering Miller’s attorneys potential dates for hearings in front of Howell. One hearing would be on whether Miller’s motion to squash was timely, according to Politico, and the other on its merits.

It is not clear whether Wednesday’s closed-door proceeding was either of those hearings, or about something else.

Read More →

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis on Tuesday denied a request by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to move his upcoming trial away from Alexandria — a Virginia suburb of D.C. — and to Roanoke, Virginia, about a four hour drive away.

The trial, where Manafort is facing charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller of tax fraud and bank fraud, is scheduled to begin in Alexandria next week.

Ellis, in his eight-page order, rejected Manafort’s argument that the D.C. media frenzy around his case, as well as Alexandria’s education level and political leanings, make it more likely that a jury pool would be biased against him.

Ellis noted that the jury would be selected from geographic area covering 3 million people, and that the media attention on the case was national in nature, rather than specific to the Northern Virginia area. The judge also said that “jurors’ political leanings are not, by themselves, evidence that those jurors cannot fairly and impartially consider the evidence presented and apply the law as instructed by the Court.”

Read the judge’s order below:

Read More →

Special counsel Robert Mueller revealed in court filings Tuesday that he is seeking immunity for five potential witnesses in next week’s criminal trial of Paul Manafort.

The court filing was a request by Mueller that he be allowed to keep secret, for now, the identity of the five possible witnesses, unless and until they are called to testify publicly at the trial.

“The five individuals identified in the motions at issue are third parties who have not been charged in this matter, and who have not been identified publicly with the case,” Mueller said in the court document. “Disclosing the motions would reveal those individuals’ involvement in the investigation and the trial, thereby creating the risk of their undue harassment. Such concern potentially would be heightened by the additional revelation that they have invoked their privilege against self-incrimination and may be granted immunity from the use against them of any compelled testimony.”

He also raised the concern that “the witnesses’ invocation of their privilege against self-incrimination and the Court’s subsequent grant of immunity could lead to reputational harm for the witnesses.”

Manafort faces trial in Virginia, where the former Trump campaign chairman has been charged with bank fraud and tax fraud. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis has scheduled the trial to begin on July 25.

“The government recognizes that if any of the five individuals are called to testify, their identity and receipt of use immunity likely will become public, and thus the concerns raised in this motion no longer would apply,” Mueller said. “Accordingly, in order to narrowly tailor its request, the government proposes that the information remain sealed unless and until the individuals testify in this case.”

Mueller said that while he is seeking to file the motions for immunity for the judge’s eyes only, any corresponding orders handed down by the judge would be provided to defense counsel by prosecutors ahead of the trial.

Read the filing below:

Read More →

A recently passed GOP measure in North Carolina, a hotbed of voter suppression efforts, claims to be aimed at expanding voting rights but appears that it would actually have the opposite effect. The bill, passed over the Democratic Governor’s veto, requires early voting polling places to remain open for 12 hours a day each weekday. The problem is that it was passed quickly, late in the legislative session, surprising many localities that had already set their annual budgets. The fear among voting rights advocates, as Slate reported, is that the requirement will actually suck up local resources, and counties will have to cut back on the number of sites where they offer early voting.

Former President Barack Obama took a rare step into the public spotlight last week by filming a video touting the work of a group led by his former Attorney General Eric Holder, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which focuses on electing lawmakers and bringing lawsuits that seek to curtail extreme gerrymandering.

Related to the fight over redistricting is the focus on the 2020 Census. In addition to the half-dozen or so lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s addition of a citizenship question to the census, which critics say will diminish immigrant representation in redistricting and apportionment, Alabama Republicans have brought a lawsuit seeking to exclude undocumented immigrants from the Census count used to apportion U.S. congressional districts. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a motion Thursday to intervene in that case to defend the current system of counting undocumented immigrants in congressional apportionment.

Voting rights advocates were dealt both a victory and a defeat in state legislatures over the past week. On the pro-voting rights side, the Massachusetts legislature passed an automatic voter registration bill on Thursday; it now awaits Republican Gov. Charlie Baker’s signature.

In New Hampshire, however, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu signed a GOP bill on Friday that will greatly increase the obstacles for college students in the state to register to vote. The move came after a 3-2 state Supreme Court advisory opinion greenlighting the bill.

Voting rights activists in Michigan got closer to implementing measures to expand access to the franchise there. A group called Promote the Vote last week collected 430,000 signatures for a ballot initiative slated for November’s election which would bring to the state automatic voter registration, same-day registration, access to absentee ballots on request, and better access for military service members and overseas voters.

The Campaign Legal Center and Southern Poverty Law Center rolled out a new campaign in Alabama, called Alabama Voting Rights Project, to tout a new state law that restores eligibility to vote to people who committed certain felonies.

The federal grand jury indictment of 12 Russian hackers unveiled by special counsel Robert Mueller Friday provided new details about Russia’s attempts to infiltrate state and local elections systems. I broke down what was new in the indictment, and how it compares to what we previously knew, here.

Read More →

On the heels of President Trump’s press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin — during which Trump called Putin’s denials of Russia 2016 election meddling “strong” and “powerful” — Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats issued a statement reiterating the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia was behind the influence effort.

“We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy,” Coats — a former GOP senator and Trump appointee — said.

Read More →

Sen. John McCain (R) issued a blistering statement condemning President Trump’s Monday summit and subsequent press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which the Arizona senator said was “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.”

“The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake,” McCain said. He said that Trump was speaking from the “the same script” as Putin when he “made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.”

McCain, who for months has been undergoing cancer treatments in Arizona, brought up Trump’s “bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain,” while calling Monday’s press conference “a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency. ”

“No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant,” McCain said.

Read the full statement below:

“Today’s press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.

“President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.

“It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout – as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience. But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician. These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties, and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.

“Coming close on the heels of President Trump’s bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain, today’s press conference marks a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency. That the president was attended in Helsinki by a team of competent and patriotic advisors makes his blunders and capitulations all the more painful and inexplicable.

“No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are—a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed. Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.”

Read More →

LiveWire