Headline

Judge Refuses Trump Request To Block Jan. 6 Records

Published

4 years ago

November 12, 2021

A federal judge rejected former President Donald Trump’s request to block the release of documents to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

In denying a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said Tuesday that Congress had a strong public interest in obtaining records that could shed light on a violent insurrection mounted by the former president’s supporters. She added that President Joe Biden had the authority to waive executive privilege over the documents despite Trump’s assertions otherwise.

Barring a court order, the National Archives plans to turn over Trump’s records to the committee by Friday. But Trump’s lawyers swiftly promised an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The case probably will eventually head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Chutkan late Wednesday denied another request from Trump’s attorneys to order the National Archives not to turn over records while an appeal is pending.

“At bottom, this is a dispute between a former and incumbent President,” Chutkan said in her Tuesday order. “And the Supreme Court has already made clear that in such circumstances, the incumbent’s view is accorded greater weight.”

Trump “does not acknowledge the deference owed” to Biden’s judgment as the current president, Chutkan said. She noted examples of past presidents declining to assert executive privilege and rejected what she said was Trump’s claim that executive privilege “exists in perpetuity.”

“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” she said.

According to an earlier court filing from the archives, the records include call logs, drafts of remarks and speeches and handwritten notes from Trump’s then-chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

There are also copies of talking points from then-press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and “a draft Executive Order on the topic of election integrity,” the National Archives has said.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who leads the House committee, said in a statement after the ruling that the records are crucial for understanding the attack and “in my view, there couldn’t be a more compelling public interest than getting answers about an attack on our democracy.”

On CNN, Thompson said Trump should stop behaving like a “spoiled brat.”

The nine-member committee is investigating not just Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 — when he told a rally to “fight like hell” shortly before rioters overran law enforcement — but his efforts in the months before the riot to challenge election results or obstruct a peaceful transfer of power.

The committee has interviewed more than 150 witnesses and issued more than 30 subpoenas, including ones announced Tuesday to McEnany and former top White House adviser Stephen Miller. It is unclear whether the lawmakers will eventually seek to have Trump testify.

Trump has attacked the committee’s work and continued to promote unfounded conspiracy theories about widespread fraud in the election, despite the fact that Biden’s victory was certified by all 50 states and his claims have been rebuked by courts across the country.

In suing to block the National Archives from turning over documents, Trump called the House committee’s request a “vexatious, illegal fishing expedition” that was “untethered from any legitimate legislative purpose.” Allowing the House to get access to his records would also damage executive privilege for future presidents, Trump’s lawyers argued.

But Chutkan said the “the public interest lies in permitting — not enjoining — the combined will of the legislative and executive branches to study the events that led to and occurred on January 6, and to consider legislation to prevent such events from ever occurring again.”

Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich tweeted late Tuesday that the case “was destined to be decided by the Appellate Courts.” He added that “Trump remains committed to defending the Constitution & the Office of the Presidency, & will be seeing this process through.”

The White House said Chutkan’s opinion “is consistent with what the President has already said” about the riot. “It is absolutely vital for there to be a full accounting of the events on that day to ensure that something like that never happens again,” spokesman Mike Gwin said.

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

“We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

AFP

Headline

Google Faces Court Battle Over Breakup Of Ad Tech Business

Published

1 day ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year after the California-based tech juggernaut saw a similar government demand to split up its empire shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.
Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.
Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.
Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.
Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

Headline

Peru Anti-government Protesters Clash With Police

Published

2 days ago

September 21, 2025

Editor

Hundreds of anti-government protesters clashed with police in the Peruvian capital Lima on Saturday, throwing stones and sticks as officers fired tear gas on the demonstrators, AFP journalists reported.

The protest, organized by a youth collective called “Generation Z”, is part of growing social unrest in Peru against organized crime, corruption in public office, and a recent pension reform.

“Today, there is less democracy than before. It’s getting worse… because of fear, because of extortion,” said 54-year-old protester Gladys, who declined to give her last name.

Around 500 people gathered in the city center, under heavy police presence.

“Congress has no credibility, it doesn’t even have the approval of the people… It is wreaking havoc in this country,” said protester Celene Amasifuen.

The clashes broke out as demonstrators tried to approach executive and congressional buildings in Lima.

The radio station Exitosa said that its reporter and a cameraman were hit by pellets, commonly fired by law enforcement.

Police said at least three officers were wounded.

Approval ratings for President Dina Boluarte, whose term ends next year, have plummeted amid rising extortion and organized crime cases.

Several opinion polls show the government and conservative-majority Congress are seen by many as corrupt institutions.

This week, the legislature passed a law requiring young adults to join a private pension fund, despite many facing a precarious working environment.