halt

A central question in the congressional investigation of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys is whether Carol C. Lam in San Diego was dismissed, and Debra Wong Yang in Los Angeles eased out, to try to derail corruption probes of prominent California Republicans.

Whatever officials in Washington might have intended, Yang and Lam’s departures had no effect on the investigations, which continue unabated, sources close to the inquiries said this week. And several present and former federal prosecutors said it would be extremely difficult — though not impossible — to quash an investigation for political reasons.

“Most criminal prosecutors are an independent sort with a strong sense of pursuing truth and justice,” said William W. Carter, a Los Angeles federal prosecutor for 14 years before moving to the firm Musick, Peeler & Garrett in November. “They would be repulsed, and rebel, against any political order. There would be an uproar.”

Although the nation’s 93 U.S. attorneys are political appointees, their offices are staffed with career prosecutors who are tasked with pursuing justice without regard for any political agenda.

Those prosecutors — assistant U.S. attorneys — often come from top-flight law schools and see the job as a noble calling. Many of them could make much more money in private practice.

Calling a prosecutor off a case — particularly if the motive were transparently political — would cause an uproar, said Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor Laurie L. Levenson. “You’d have to suspend reality to think you could get away with it,” she said.

The U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego is moving forward on the expanding investigation that netted Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe), the sources said. And prosecutors in Los Angeles continue to examine Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) over various dealings with lobbyists and contractors during the time he was chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

Neither Lam nor Yang had direct involvement in the corruption investigations, the sources said. According to one source close to the Lewis inquiry, Yang never asked to be briefed by her prosecutors, nor did she give them any input. “It was just nothing … which was good.”

The sources close to the probes requested anonymity because a Justice Department policy bars public comment on ongoing investigations.

Yang emphatically denied that she was pushed out or that she or her successor was asked to stop a politically charged investigation.

“You have so many players involved, it’s ridiculous that you could make an investigation disappear, especially one that is high profile — because those are the ones all the assistants want to work on,” she said.

Levenson said there are subtle ways, however, to let a case “die a slow death.”

Supervisors could assign the prosecutors other matters to work on or divert resources away from the case. They could balk at issuing subpoenas or seeking approvals of various sorts from Washington. And when it comes time to seek an indictment, particularly if the case is not a slam-dunk, the U.S. attorney or even the Justice Department in Washington could waver and tell the prosecutors that they need to do more investigating.

Yet even this scenario is more likely to happen in a John Grisham novel than in real life, Levenson said.

Congressional investigators first focused on the possibility that Lam was fired because of the expanding Cunningham inquiry or the Lewis investigation. Although Lam’s office was not involved in the Lewis probe, those involved in the firings might not have known that because both cases involved the same prominent lobbyist, several prosecutors suggested.

Now some of the focus has shifted to Yang, with testimony indicating that the White House might have been looking to push her out.

In October 2006 — less than two months before the firings — Yang announced her resignation to take a job at the Los Angeles firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which was defending Lewis and has strong Republican ties. Her new salary is reportedly about $1.5 million a year.

Yang said at the time that, as a recently divorced mother of three, she needed to enter the private sector to support her family.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, was questioned Thursday about Yang’s resignation, but insisted that she left of her own accord.

But in recent testimony to congressional investigators, D. Kyle Sampson, the Justice Department aide who coordinated the firings, said the White House had inquired in September about pushing Yang out to “create a vacancy.”

“I remember [White House Counsel] Harriet Miers asking me about Debra Yang … and what her plans were, whether she might be asked to resign,” Sampson told investigators last month, according to a senior congressional aide.

An opinion piece by a New York Times editorial editor, Adam Cohen, suggested that Gibson Dunn might have lured Yang away with the rich salary offer to get her off the Lewis investigation.

Gibson Dunn lawyers took offense at the suggestion.

“It’s absurd,” said Randy Mastro, co-chairman of the firm’s crisis management group with Yang.

It was well known that Yang was looking for something new, he added, and at least three top firms were actively recruiting her.

As for her being pushed out, he said Yang notified Miers in January 2006 that she planned to leave by the end of summer.

Mastro would not comment specifically on the Lewis investigation.

joe.mozingo@latimes.com

A judge in the United States has declined to order President Donald Trump’s administration to halt its immigration crackdown in Minnesota, amid mass protests over deadly shootings by federal agents in the US state.

US District Judge Kate Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

She said state authorities made a strong showing that immigration agents’ tactics, including shootings and evidence of racial profiling, were having “profound and even heartbreaking consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities, and Minnesotans”.

But Menendez wrote in her ruling that, “ultimately, the Court finds that the balance of harms does not decisively favor an injunction”.

The lawsuit seeks to block or rein in a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operation that sent thousands of immigration agents to the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, sparking mass protests and leading to the killings of two US citizens by federal agents.

Tensions have soared since an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Minneapolis mother Renee Nicole Good in her car on January 7.

Federal border agents also killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti in the city on January 24, stoking more public anger and calls for accountability.

Tom Homan, Trump’s so-called “border czar”, told reporters earlier this week that the administration was working to make the immigration operation “safer, more efficient [and] by the book”.

But that has not stopped the demonstrations, with thousands of protesters taking to the streets of Minneapolis on Friday amid a nationwide strike to denounce the Trump administration’s crackdown.

Speaking to Al Jazeera from a memorial rally in Saint Paul on Saturday, city councillor Cheniqua Johnson said, “It feels more like the federal government is here to [lay] siege [to] Minnesota than to protect us.”

She said residents have said they are afraid to leave their homes to get groceries. “I’m receiving calls … from community members are struggling just to be able to do [everyday] things,” Johnson said.

“That’s why you’re seeing folks being willing to stand in Minnesota, in negative-degree weather, thousands of folks marching … in opposition to the injustice that we are seeing when law and order is not being upheld.”

Racial profiling accusations

In their lawsuit, Minnesota state and local officials have argued that the immigration crackdown amounts to retaliation after Washington’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

They maintain that the surge has amounted to an unconstitutional drain on state and local resources, noting that schools and businesses have been shuttered in the wake of what local officials say are aggressive, poorly trained and armed federal officers.

Ellison, the Minnesota attorney general, also has accused federal agents of racially profiling citizens, unlawfully detaining lawful residents for hours, and stoking fear with their heavy-handed tactics.

The Trump administration has said its operation is aimed at enforcing federal immigration laws as part of the president’s push to carry out the largest deportation operation in US history.

On Saturday, Menendez, the district court judge, said she was not making a final judgement on the state’s overall case in her decision not to issue a temporary restraining order, something that would follow arguments in court.

She also made no determination on whether the immigration crackdown in Minnesota had broken the law.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi called the judge’s decision a “HUGE” win for the Department of Justice.

“Neither sanctuary policies nor meritless litigation will stop the Trump Administration from enforcing federal law in Minnesota,” she wrote on X.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said he was disappointed by the ruling.

“This decision doesn’t change what people here have lived through — fear, disruption, and harm caused by a federal operation that never belonged in Minneapolis in the first place,” Frey said in a statement.

“This operation has not brought public safety. It’s brought the opposite and has detracted from the order we need for a working city. It’s an invasion, and it needs to stop.”

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

The federal government argued that the surge, which it calls Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is political retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

“Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi lauded the ruling Saturday on social media, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department.

Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis, Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.