FORT WORTH, Texas — A demonstrator who shot and wounded a police officer outside a Texas immigration center last July 4 was sentenced to 100 years in federal prison Tuesday, while other protesters accused of having links to antifa were given multiple decades in federal prison.
Benjamin Song was convicted of attempted murder last March after prosecutors say he opened fire and wounded a police officer at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado.
The seven other protesters sentenced Tuesday received prison terms ranging from 30 to 70 years.
“Our issue with this case has always been this isn’t a bunch of terrorists. This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard,” Philip Hayes, Song’s attorney, said outside the federal courthouse in Fort Worth. “It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired.”
He said his client would appeal the sentencing.
“Song, aside from this day, has had an impeccable life. A former Marine. A good student,” Hayes said. “He had a lot of good qualities that were just ignored. The judge went ahead and gave as much as he could.”
One of the defendants, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was convicted of corruptly concealing a document and conspiracy to conceal documents. Others pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.
Prosecutors say the eight are members of antifa, a decentralized anti-fascist organization that has become a target of the Trump administration. They have denied any affiliation and maintain they attended the demonstration to show support for immigrants inside the detention center.
President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations.
Critics warn the case could have wide-reaching impact on protests given that organizations operating within the U.S. are supposed to be protected by First Amendment free-speech rights.
Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.
Last week, federal prosecutors charged 15 people with impeding the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. They claimed the demonstrators were members of antifa who conspired against the federal government to block arrests and deportations by setting up blockades around government buildings and throwing chunks of ice at federal vehicles, among other actions.
Stengle and Marcelo write for the Associated Press. Marcelo reported from New York.
This is widely seen as a throw-me-in-the-briar-patch gift from President Trump, coming as California’s governor edges ever closer toward a 2028 run for the White House. The presumed effort to cut down a political foe could instead boost Newsom’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination, or so it’s being suggested.
After all, look at how Trump’s verbal bludgeoning elevated former Rep. Adam Schiff. The House has typically been a dead end for lawmakers seeking statewide office in California. Today, the former Burbank congressman and Trump tormentor is a United States senator.
In truth, however, it’s far too early to say how the investigation of Newsom and his wife plays out politically, not least because it’s unclear whether there’s merit to the probe or if it’s merely a fruitless search-and-destroy mission by Trump’s Department of Retribution, Vengeance and Settling Old Scores
Beyond that, the first ballots of the 2028 campaign won’t be cast for roughly a year and a half. The Democratic National Convention, where the party will install its nominee, doesn’t begin for another 778 days.
Your friendly political columnist won’t resort to that hoariest of cliches about such-and-such duration being a lifetime in politics. But for some perspective, let’s go back 778 days.
President Joe Biden was running for reelection and about to challenge Trump to a pair of early debates. Trump was sequestered in a New York City courtroom being prosecuted on 34 felony counts.
A lot happened in the weeks and months that followed, including Biden’s self-immolation on the debate stage and Trump’s criminal conviction. A lot more will happen in the weeks and months to come. There’s no telling what. But it’s safe to say the fight for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination will not be decided by anything that’s taken place in June 2026.
With his exquisitely tuned political antennae, the governor jumped out front of the president by announcing last week the feds were targeting him and his wife. (Naturally, Newsom’s revelation was accompanied by a rage-bait email — subject line: “Because I am thinking of running for president” — that denounced the “political witch hunt” and asked for money.)
“After calling for my arrest last year, Donald Trump directed his Department of Justice to investigate me,” Newsom said in a 4 ½-minute, direct-to-camera video that framed the investigation before prosecutors had the chance. “And just in the last week, I’ve learned his campaign has reached my own home: To get me, he’s coming after my wife, Jen.”
Share via
Newsom and his wife both adamantly denied any wrongdoing and, of course, they must be presumed innocent until and unless proven otherwise.
But there was something a bit disingenuous about the governor’s chivalrous defense. Siebel Newsom, a documentary filmmaker who calls herself California’s “First Partner,” is no mere housewife baking cookies and holding teas, in the famous words of Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Hold the outrage, folks, this is not some retrograde criticism of career-seeking women.)
Among her many public-facing activities, Siebel Newsom heads The Representation Project, a nonprofit focused on challenging gender stereotypes. The organization has faced criticism for accepting donations from companies that lobby the governor, so it’s not unreasonable to ask whether those interests have improperly sought to influence Newsom by giving money to Siebel Newsom’s causes.
My Times colleagues reported that an investigation related to Siebel Newsom has been underway for about a year and was launched by federal prosecutors in Sacramento based on whistle-blower information provided in California. It was not, their source said, the result of a directive out of Washington.
“This is a huge problem,” Randall Eliason, former chief of the Public Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, told Politico. “In any political corruption prosecution, the defense almost always claims it is a ‘political witch hunt,’ that prosecutors are targeting him or her for some political reason.
“The best defense to that has always been [the Justice Department’s] tradition of independence from politics and long track record of pursuing corruption cases based only on the facts and law, without regard to political considerations,” Eliason said. “The Trump administration has abandoned that independence without even trying to hide it.”
The probe of Newsom and his wife presents more questions than answers.
It’s grody, but not criminal on its face, for lobbyists to curry favor with the governor by throwing cash at his wife’s endeavors — if, in fact, that’s been the case. Special interests spending money to gain access and influence is about as common in Sacramento and other capitals as statues, domed buildings and manicured lawns.
So why then are the feds investigating Newsom? Why now? Is there any fire, or is it all a lot of smoke?
Perhaps most important, where can you turn to get an impartial answer?
A bill to tighten California’s rules on mental health diversion — a process that allows certain criminal defendants to avoid prison for arrests linked to mental illness — is now on the verge of being signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Assembly Bill 46, authored by Stephanie Nguyen (D-Elk Grove), gives judges much wider discretion to decide whether a defendant should be eligible for diversion. Under the current law, judges must presume mental illness was a factor if a defendant with a legitimate diagnosis seeks diversion. In order to defeat a diversion request, the burden is on prosecutors to prove mental health issues were not a factor in the alleged crime.
The new measure — which moved through the state Senate with no opposition last month and is expected to clear the reconciliation process in the Assembly this week — also gives judges more latitude to block diversion if a defendant poses “a risk of danger to public safety,” as opposed to the higher “unreasonable risk” standard that was passed in 2018. Defendants charged with attempted murder will no longer be eligible for diversion under the new bill.
Proponents of more inclusive diversion policies argue that many people with mental health issues are locked up in California prisons and jails, where they are unable to receive the help they need.
The pending bill’s supporters say its changes are designed to address cases like that of Gilberto Guttierrez, a Los Angeles County man who has been accused of attacking his wife four times over the last 12 years.
In 2014, a misdemeanor domestic violence allegation landed Guttierrez on probation. Three years later, Guttierrez was ordered to take anger management classes after prosecutors brought felony domestic violence charges against him. Last February, prosecutors allege, he carried out a “brutal attack” on his wife with a glass bottle, leaving her with “extensive injuries,” according to a motion filed in his current criminal case. That time, the court filings show, Guttierrez threatened to kill her.
Despite objections from prosecutors and L.A. County probation officials, a judge granted a request to give Guttierrez mental health diversion last July.
A month later, prosecutors allege, he beat his wife until she fell into a coma.
When it passed in 2018, the original mental health diversion law was heralded as a needed off-ramp for defendants suffering from serious psychological issues — offering treatment to those who need it rather than a prison cell. But with voters statewide souring on progressive criminal justice reforms, lawmakers have sought to make it harder for defendants to qualify.
“AB 46 preserves diversion as an important pathway to care while ensuring judges have a clearer and more workable standard when serious public safety concerns are present,” Nguyen said in a statement last month.
Under the existing rules, defendants who successfully argue for pretrial mental health diversion spend two years undergoing a court-appointed treatment plan instead of facing a conviction. Prosecutors must prove the defendant is likely to commit a serious violent crime, a so-called “super strike,” again in order to block diversion.
Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, one of many prosecutors statewide who supported Nguyen’s bill, said that has been a nearly impossible standard to overcome.
“Guttierrez being your example: Judge, if you release him, he’s going to probably beat his wife up again, and if he does this time, he could kill her. But for the grace of God, he hasn’t killed her up until now,” Hochman said.
He added that due to the judge’s decision to grant diversion in Guttierrez’s case, “you have three little kids who likely won’t have their mom for the rest of their life.”
A spokesperson for Newsom did not respond to a request for comment about his plans for the legislation.
A 2020 Rand Corporation study found 61% of the nearly 5,500 mentally ill inmates housed in Los Angeles County at that time were “likely appropriate candidates” for diversion.
But a number of troubling incidents have led to pushback against the existing diversion law.
In a letter supporting Nguyen’s bill, the California District Attorneys Assn. rattled off a list of cases in which prosecutors say the law’s shortcomings had deadly consequences. They pointed to a case in Sacramento where a defendant stabbed a 40-year-old man to death after he was granted diversion in a robbery case. In Santa Clara, the letter said, a woman on mental health diversion for carjacking proceeded to steal another car and slam it into an outside table at a restaurant, leaving one person dead and others injured.
Nikhil Ramnaney, a former federal prosecutor who now works as a defense attorney in Southern California, said thousands of people benefit from mental health diversion every year without reoffending and chastised the bill’s supporters for cherry-picking horrible — but rare — cases to muster support for their proposal.
“This is their most effective strategy because it works. Pick up the most visceral, outrageous anecdotes and then repeat them and amplify them as much as possible,” he said. “That’s how we get bad policy.”
Defense attorney Alexandra Kazarian said California politicians are repeating age-old mistakes of trying to arrest their way out of a mental health crisis.
“Without this option, you throw them into prison for a couple of years, they get out, and nothing changes. I’ve seen real change in my clients who have been granted these and who have just been on horrific mental health breaks and who, two years later, fully have their lives together,” she said. “You’re always going to be able to find an outlier. You’re always going to be able to find somebody who ruins what is a great project or program.”
Hochman said the modified mental health diversion law is a “rebalancing” of the scales in California after years of attempts to lower the state’s overcrowded jail populations affected public safety.
“In the end, I’m not looking for pendulum swings,” he said. “I think we did have a pendulum swing when these laws were being passed and people weren’t really discussing, or at least understanding, the public safety impact of laws that seem on their surface to be very — I wouldn’t even use the word ‘progressive,’ but very helpful to people who are suffering.”
First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli — President Trump’s loyalist federal prosecutor in Los Angeles — has not been shy in recent days about his intention to ferret out voter fraud in California’s primary election and criminally charge those responsible.
He has announced that his office “has multiple election fraud investigations underway” in coordination with the FBI, urged Californians on social media to submit evidence of “potential election fraud” directly to his office, and said flatly he “will be charging some people” with election fraud — just as soon as California certifies its vote count and his office “can prove some of the allegations.”
Essayli’s public callouts and promises are highly unusual and in direct conflict with Justice Department guidance on ballot fraud investigations at the federal level, which states federal prosecutors should not publicly pursue such claims amid of vote counting.
The Justice Manual — which regulates the actions of federal prosecutors nationwide — says the department “should not engage in overt criminal investigative measures in matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded,” in part because doing so “runs the risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities and of interjecting the investigation itself into ongoing campaigns and the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.”
Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesman for Essayli’s office, said neither Essayli nor the office had any comment.
Essayli has repeatedly acknowledged in other interviews that he has no evidence of widespread fraud that could sway the results of races, and he even shot down one prominent online conspiracy that falsely alleged Democratic cheating in the Los Angeles mayoral race.
But he has also pointed to more isolated instances of fraud as potentially indicative of bigger problems. He added that there’s no proof such rampant fraud isn’t occurring, partly because of resistance from California to a federal audit of its voter rolls.
Essayli’s remarks are part of a much wider battle to frame fraud in California as pivotal or not, in which Republicans cite individual instances of alleged fraud as evidence of some grand scheme by Democrats to steal the election from them, and Democrats — along with many elections experts — say there is no evidence that isolated crimes reflect fraud on a scale large enough to impact election outcomes.
His remarks have added fuel to baseless claims from Trump and other influential conservative voices that California’s elections have been poorly compromised by coordinated Democratic “cheating.” They have made Essayli one of the most prominent Trump administration figures in the nationwide debate around election integrity — which election experts expect to intensify ahead of November’s midterms.
A public campaign
Essayli has made his case in recent days on various alternative and right-wing news programs and podcasts, arguing that California’s slow process for counting votes had undermined public trust and needs to be audited.
On One America News Network, Essayli said his office has been “sounding the alarm on California’s election system” because it’s ripe for fraud.
“We believe that it has major vulnerabilities. We believe California does not have sufficient safeguards to make sure only eligible U.S. citizens are voting in elections in California, and that is why we’ve been demanding an audit of the California voter rolls,” he said.
On NewsNation with Chris Cuomo, Essayli said he doesn’t “care what the outcome of the election is,” but wants voters “to have confidence in the systems, and that the laws are being followed.”
“I guarantee you, when we do bring cases, we will have plenty of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law — that is how we work,” he said.
On the podcast of conservative commentator Glenn Beck, Essayli said he was “prohibited from discussing ongoing investigations,” but that “election fraud is not a theory” but “a real thing” — noting his office recently secured a guilty plea from a woman who paid homeless people to register to vote.
He said California is “a fraudster’s paradise,” accused the state Legislature of “going out of their way to make it as easy as possible for people to commit fraud,” and repeated oft-cited complaints about California’s voter ID policies being lax, its universal mail ballot policies sending ballots to the wrong places, its ballot collection policies allowing “harvesting” and its voter rolls being “dirty,” or filled with ineligible voters.
Essayli said all of that makes his job “incredibly difficult,” because “California has removed the paper trail, they’ve removed the chain of custody, they’ve removed any meaningful way for us to basically have a forensic audit of where a ballot came from,” but that he will nonetheless be bringing election fraud charges in the next “one to two months.”
State and local elections officials in California have defended the state’s policies as facilitating voting by as many eligible voters as possible, which they say is more important than a quick count. They’ve said there are robust procedures in place to ensure ballots are cast fairly and counted accurately, and to identify any problems and audit the results.
Elections experts say instances of fraud do exist, both in California and everywhere else in the country, but that robust efforts in past years to investigate and identify widespread fraud that could sway an election — including by Trump and his lawyers but also outside organizations — have always failed.
Essayli’s efforts have drawn sharp criticism from elections experts, leading Democrats and former prosecutors in the office.
Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who studies elections and was a senior policy adviser on democracy and voting rights in the Biden White House, said what Essayli is doing — throwing out unspecified claims of fraud amid an ongoing election and before he has built a case — is “absolutely nuts” and “not a thing that real prosecutors do.”
Before the current administration, the “mantra” of federal prosecutors, he said, was that “you only hold a press conference about a not-yet-concluded investigation when the public is already aware of a large crime,” such as a mass shooting. “Absent that, you wait for the facts to come in, and you see whether there has been a legal violation, and then and only then do you issue a press release — usually hand in hand with an indictment or a conviction.”
In an election, Levitt said the standard is even higher, and “the ethos of a federal prosecutor should be to never become the story, and to never make the prosecutorial job itself an impact in the election you are investigating.”
In an MS NOW interview, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a former federal prosecutor in the L.A. office, blasted Essayli as wildly searching for fraud to please Trump — despite it and other efforts to please Trump, including on immigration, causing an exodus of experienced career prosecutors from the office.
Schiff said Essayli was “basically making a plea to the public: ‘Please send me evidence. I’m asserting there’s fraud. We don’t have evidence of it, but please send me something. I need to make the boss happy.’”
Another former prosecutor in the office, who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation, said Essayli is pursuing alleged election fraud cases as hard as he is only because “Trump told him to,” and he’s “constantly auditioning for a bigger D.C. job in case he gets kicked out of his current one.”
Essayli is not the U.S. attorney for Los Angeles — only the “first assistant” — because he has been unable to win confirmation from the U.S. Senate and has only remained in charge through a legal loophole.
Investigations in the works
It’s unclear what specific issues or incidents Essayli’s office is investigating.
Essayli has said his investigations so far lean toward individuals rather than networks, and he told the California Post that he would be investigating a report that thousands of people were registered to vote at homeless shelters with far fewer beds.
His office also looked into false claims that an election night ballot update in Los Angeles County include no votes for Spencer Pratt, the Republican candidate. He said his office “reviewed official county records” and determined the claim was false.
“My office will continue monitoring the election counting process and will follow the evidence wherever it leads,” he said.
One person involved in investigating the latter case was Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Renner, who joined the office in March after previously serving as deputy general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit Washington, D.C., law firm where he worked on lawsuits focused on conservative free-speech issues, according to his LinkedIn page.
A worker carries ballots at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center.
(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)
Renner, who referred questions to the office spokesperson, visited an L.A. County ballot processing center as part of the investigation, where he questioned election officials about the ballot update, according to a law enforcement source with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.
Election officials have said their numbers were always correct and that the discrepancy was based on a one-minute lag in vote updates for Pratt by The Associated Press, which also confirmed the lag.
Renner also grilled election officials about whether or not post office officials had backdated postmarks on mail ballots sent after election day so they could still be counted, the source said.
Essayli’s elevation to the top prosecutor position in L.A. was part of a broader push by the Trump administration to fill key Justice Department roles with people loyal to the president and open to his election skepticism. Earlier this year, a Times investigation detailed how disgraced ex-L.A. County prosecutor Eric Neff was named “acting chief” of the Justice Department’s voting section.
Neff led a bungled election integrity case at the L.A. County district attorney’s office that was thrown out after an internal review revealed it hinged on the word of “Stop The Steal” activists who had pushed Trump’s discredited theory that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged.”
It was one of two election integrity cases Neff tried in his entire career before being elevated to the voting chief post by Asst. Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, another proud Trump loyalist from California.
Michael Sanchez, a spokesperson for Dean Logan, head of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, said the office has not received any formal document requests or investigation notices from Essayli’s office, only “routine questions about operations.”
What will come of Essayli’s investigations is also unclear. He will have to prove whatever allegations he makes in court — which he has repeatedly appeared to begrudge in recent interviews.
“Instead of putting the burden on the system to reassure the people [that] only legal citizens are voting, one person one vote is the law of the land, and the burden on the system to assure us that there’s integrity and we can believe in it,” he complained to Beck, “they’ve flipped it and now it’s on us to prove every allegation of fraud.”
MINNEAPOLIS — The man charged in the political assassinations of the top Democrat in the Minnesota House and her husband, as well as the nonfatal shootings of a state senator and his wife, pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday after prosecutors said they would not seek the death penalty.
Vance Boelter was charged with murdering Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, and with shooting state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette Hoffman. Boelter came to their doors in the early hours of June 14, 2025, disguised as a police officer and driving a fake squad car.
The Hortmans’ golden retriever was so gravely injured that it had to be euthanized.
Boelter, 58, was captured near his home in rural Green Isle the day after the shootings following what prosecutors have called the largest search for a suspect in Minnesota history. He also faces state charges, which have been on hold pending the resolution of his federal case.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Minneapolis notified the court Wednesday that the Justice Department would not seek the death penalty against Boelter in accordance with a proposed plea agreement, and the court set the change-of-plea hearing for Thursday.
Minnesota abolished capital punishment in 1911 and has never had a federal death penalty case. Daniel Borgertpoepping, a spokesperson for the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, said the federal plea deal would not affect Boelter’s state charges.
While the Trump administration has pushed for greater use of capital punishment, there were questions about whether Boelter’s case would qualify for the death penalty under federal law.
Prosecutors have called the shootings political. When they announced the federal indictment in July, they released a rambling handwritten letter they say Boelter wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel in which he confessed to the attacks. However, the letter didn’t make clear why he targeted the Hortmans or the Hoffmans.
In some messages to media, Boelter referenced a vague and cryptic “investigation” he had been carrying out, sometimes suggesting it was about the COVID-19 vaccine.
John Hoffman said in a lawsuit filed against Boelter in April that his left arm and hand likely would never fully recover, and that he also had permanent injuries to his digestive and urinary systems.
Yvette Hoffman was left with permanent physical weakness, the lawsuit said, while their adult daughter, Hope Hoffman, who was there and called 911 but was not shot, suffered severe psychological trauma.
Nearly 17 years after the King of Pop’s death, Michael Jackson is dominating the box office, television ratings and headlines.
“Michael,” the biopic about the star that hit theaters in April, has surpassed $900 million at box offices globally, according to Deadline, making it the second-highest-grossing film of 2026 behind “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie,” which hit $1 billion. Although “Bohemian Rhapsody” is still the highest-grossing musical biopic, “Michael” is a mere $11 million behind and will likely snag the title in coming weeks.
The film, which stars Jackson’s nephew Jaafar Jackson, follows the “Thriller” hitmaker from his early career leading the Jackson Five to reaching pinnacle star status in the late ’80s. The film’s timeline ends before 1993, when Jackson faced sexual abuse allegations brought by 13-year-old Jordan Chandler.
On Tuesday, “Michael” was released to streaming services, and fans at home can rent or buy on-demand from Amazon Prime Video and other platforms.
Also available for streaming is the Netflix docuseries “Michael Jackson: The Verdict,” which became available on June 3 and dominated the streamer’s charts with nearly 18 million views in its first week. The three-part series examines the pop star’s 2005 molestation trial, in which he was acquitted of all charges, and features key players from the trial, including jurors, eyewitnesses and prosecutors.
The lead prosecutor, Ron Zonen, spoke with TMZ on Tuesday and said that, although he wasn’t sure audiences would view the allegations with a different lens 20 years later, he wanted the documentary to be “as accurate as possible” and feature “the perspective of people who were involved in the trial.”
As far as the response from viewers, Zonen told the outlet that he’d received threats via email. “Well, there are people who are fans, who express their displeasure at the position that we took in this documentary, and express their displeasure very clearly to me,” he said, adding that he’s not bothered by the bad blood with mega-fans, and that the threats were more numerous at the time of the trial.
Karim Khan rejects suspension as ICC governing body refers him to disciplinary proceedings before member states.
Published On 9 Jun 20269 Jun 2026
The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, has been suspended from his duties, the tribunal’s governing body said, following a probe into sexual misconduct allegations.
In a statement on Monday, the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties said it will refer Khan to disciplinary proceedings before all 125 ICC member states, which will vote on his fate in a special session.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“This suspension is not an indication of the final outcome,” it said.
The bureau, which is the executive committee of the court’s oversight body, said it referred Khan after making its own decision on the disciplinary proceedings involving the prosecutor.
It said the decision was based on a report of a United Nations investigation, the advice of an ad hoc panel of judicial experts, and written submissions, but did not give details about what it had decided.
“The decision of the Bureau and the related documentation will remain confidential,” the statement said.
Khan’s lawyers said in a statement that he rejected the decision in the strongest terms, and repeated his denial of any wrongdoing.
“The decision is unlawful, procedurally unfair and unsupported by evidence,” the statement said.
Khan, 56, drew international attention when he applied for warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza.
He also sought warrants for Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, for the October 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel.
Khan was among the first to be sanctioned by Israel’s ally, the United States, which expressed outrage over the arrest warrants.
He has maintained that the misconduct probe is a politically motivated smear campaign.
According to Reuters and the Associated Press news agencies, the UN probe found a “factual basis” for the allegations of sexual misconduct made by a female aide. However, a three-judge panel selected by the executive committee for a legal assessment of the findings found that the investigation was not conclusive enough.
Khan’s lawyers had previously told Reuters that the judges had unanimously concluded that the “factual findings do not establish misconduct or breach of duty”.
Khan has not led the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor since last May, when he took a voluntary leave of absence pending the outcome of the inquiry.
He is the first ICC prosecutor to be formally suspended from his role by the court’s oversight body.
Only the Assembly of States Parties has the authority to remove Khan from office, a move that would require a majority in a secret ballot of its 125 member states.
Sixty-three countries would need to support a measure to remove him.
No date was immediately set for the session.
Khan’s suspension will have little practical impact on the functioning of the court, given his existing leave of absence.
He has already been removed from pleading in the ICC’s most high-profile current case, against former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.
PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court has denied a prosecutor’s appeal of an order that the state’s fake elector case against President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others over the 2020 presidential election be sent back to a grand jury.
The decision marks another setback for Democratic Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes as she struggles to push the sprawling case through the courts. Mayes’ office said it will again present the case in its entirety to a grand jury rather than end the prosecution.
The ruling came after similar cases in Michigan and Georgia were dismissed by the courts and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.
A lower-court judge in Phoenix concluded in May that the case’s first grand jury hadn’t been shown the text of the Electoral Count Act, a 19th century law that governs the certification of presidential contests and was invoked by those charged in defending themselves.
Defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed, though it was amended in 2022 to specify that a state could put forward only one slate of electors and that it was the governor who would sign off.
There has been no movement in the Arizona case at the trial court level since mid-May.
Former President Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.
NEW YORK — A prediction market reported former U.S. Rep. George Santos to federal prosecutors after he boasted he’d be going to President Trump’s State of the Union address, then bet against his own attendance, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
Kalshi, the online prediction marketplace, referred Santos to the Department of Justice after detecting suspicious trades made by him ahead of Trump’s Feb. 24 speech, the person said. The person spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Kalshi also reported the trades to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal regulatory body that has vowed to crack down on insider trading in prediction marketplaces.
The Justice Department and the CFTC didn’t immediately respond Tuesday to inquiries from the AP.
Santos also did not respond to text messages or phone calls.
The referral was first reported by NPR. Santos told NPR that he wasn’t aware of the investigation. He declined to say whether he had a Kalshi account.
“I’m not saying yes, I’m not saying no,” Santos told NPR.
The convicted ex-congressman had repeatedly discussed his intention to attend the State of the Union, which came just four months after he was granted clemency by Trump in a fraud case that led to his expulsion from the U.S. House.
On the eve of Trump’s speech, Kalshi put the odds of Santos attending at close to 75%.
Then, minutes into the speech, Santos posted on X that he had been waylaid at the airport. Immediately, several social media users accused him of running another scheme.
“Santos talking to his accountant and telling him to open his Kalshi account and bet all his money on No,” one user wrote, alongside a meme of Al Pacino counting money in the movie Scarface.
In March, Santos addressed the complaints on his podcast.
“I guess people lost money,” he said. “Some people made unexpected money. That’s to show you how fragile these markets are.”
Santos, who won office as a Republican after inventing a bogus persona as a Wall Street dealmaker, was sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft in 2024.
After serving just 84 days, he was ordered released by Trump, who called Santos a “rogue” but said he didn’t deserve a harsh sentence and should get credit for voting Republican.
Prediction markets, including Kalshi and its chief rival Polymarket, have drawn scrutiny as their businesses have expanded — with some lawmakers urging the platforms to do more to guard against insider trading.
Both companies have said they are reporting suspicious trades to federal regulators. Some investigations have led to criminal charges. In April a soldier involved in the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was charged with using classified information to win more than $400,000 predicting the date of his capture on Polymarket.
In April, the Senate approved a bipartisan resolution to prevent its own members from using prediction markets.
DES MOINES, Iowa — The former superintendent of Iowa’s largest school district who was arrested last year in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown was sentenced Friday to two years in prison.
Ian Roberts is likely to be deported to his native Guyana in South America once he serves the sentence. He pleaded guilty in January to falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen and illegally possessing firearms, which together carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. His lawyers had proposed that he be put on probation “to facilitate his removal from the United States,” but prosecutors had argued that his likely deportation should not be a factor.
Prosecutors alleged Roberts knowingly lacked employment authorization for nearly all of his two-decade career in urban education and submitted a counterfeit Social Security card when he was hired as superintendent of the Des Moines public school district, which serves 30,000 students.
Roberts’ stunning case bookended the school year. His September arrest occurred as President Trump’s administration was sending increased numbers of federal immigration officers into American cities to round up immigrants.
Des Moines Public Schools said last month that it revised its conflict-of-interest policy after an audit found Roberts awarded district business to a consulting firm he worked for, affirming findings first reported by the Associated Press in the weeks after federal immigration officers detained him.
Roberts was in his school-issued vehicle when officers stopped him on Sept. 26 in a targeted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation. He allegedly fled before he was located with the help of state troopers. Authorities said a loaded handgun was wrapped in a towel under the seat and $3,000 in cash was in the car. Three other weapons were recovered during a search of his home.
In a court filing, attorneys for Roberts said he has dedicated his life in the U.S. to public service and has not been a threat to public safety. After Roberts married a U.S. citizen, his attorneys said, he was denied lawful permanent residency because he failed to disclose that he had been arrested. He said he did not think he needed to because the charges against him were dropped.
“While Dr. Roberts tried to adjust his status three more times, this initial mistake by Dr. Roberts sealed his fate,” his attorneys wrote. “In the background of his career for the next 24 years, this denial of his adjustment of status haunted Dr. Roberts like a ghost, eventually derailing his life and career.”
Dozens of people submitted letters on Roberts’ behalf to dispute how he has been portrayed and provide details of his positive impact. His lawyers wrote that he likely faces deportation to Guyana, where he will “be left without his career, without his wife, without his children, in a country where he has not lived for thirty years.”
In recommending a three-year sentence, prosecutors described a yearslong and deliberate misrepresentation of his legal status. Prosecutors said a reduced sentence is not appropriate just because Roberts is likely to be deported.
They said they do not know what documents Roberts presented to show eligibility for work dating back to 2008, years before he was approved for temporary status in 2018, but he “deliberately obtained employment without work authorization at school after school, within state after state.”
MIAMI — The Trump administration has quietly instructed federal prosecutors in Miami to avoid pursuing criminal investigations into Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez, a longtime target of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, according to current and former U.S. law enforcement officials, in the latest sign of warming relations between the White House and the oil-rich nation.
It’s unclear whether prosecutors had implicated Rodríguez in any crimes or whether investigators were moving toward an indictment. A Justice Department spokesperson said in an email “there was never an investigation into her to shut down.”
But DEA records obtained by the Associated Press earlier this year show she consistently surfaced on the radar of federal law enforcement dating to at least 2018, though she has never been criminally charged in the U.S. like several other senior Venezuelan officials.
The directive to pause scrutiny into Rodríguez was meant to avoid upsetting the administration’s efforts to stabilize Venezuela after the capture of her predecessor, Nicolás Maduro, among other reasons, a current official said. It was not clear whether the White House, which deferred comment to the Justice Department, was involved in the decision.
“Everybody has been told to stand down,” one of the former officials said.
The former officials, who had been briefed on the development, as well as the current official all spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss internal deliberations.
Rodríguez, a U.S. attorney representing her and the Venezuelan Communications Ministry didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The move eases pressure on Rodriguez
Removing the threat of potential indictment, even temporarily, eases pressure on Rodríguez as the Trump administration seeks to work with the acting leader to stabilize Venezuela after Maduro’s ouster and open the country to U.S. investment.
President Trump praised Rodríguez as a “terrific person” shortly after the U.S. military took Maduro and his wife to New York to face federal narcotics charges. Both have pleaded not guilty.
In recent months, the U.S. has lifted sanctions against Rodríguez and recognized her as Venezuela’s sole head of state, allowing her to re-establish ties with western banks and more freely work with U.S. investors seeking to tap into the world’s largest petroleum reserves. As ties between the two governments have deepened, some have held out the Venezuelan playbook — characterized by oil blockades, indictments of top leaders and threats of military intervention — as a model to drive regime change from within as the U.S. pressures other longtime adversaries in Iran and Cuba.
Rodríguez and her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, the head of the National Assembly, were hit with U.S. sanctions during Trump’s first term for their role in undermining Venezuelan democracy and cementing Maduro’s authoritarian rule.
Rodríguez “is doing a great job,” Trump wrote on social media in early March. “The Oil is beginning to flow, and the professionalism and dedication between both Countries is a very nice thing to see!”
In recent months, Rodríguez has hosted ceremonies with a steady stream of American oilmen, some of them partaking in high-profile delegations led by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.
Election talk deferred amid Trump’s praise
Missing in all the mutual backslapping is any talk of elections, even as Rodríguez last month blew through a 90-day limit set by Venezuela’s high court to fill Maduro’s position on a temporary basis.
“I don’t know,” she responded in English when a visiting U.S. journalist earlier this month shouted out a question about her time frame for holding elections. “Some time.”
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has demanded the administration explain its favorable treatment of Rodríguez, calling her a “central figure in Nicolás Maduro’s repressive regime.”
“Sanctions have been lifted on Ms. Rodríguez without any indication that she has taken concrete and meaningful actions to restore democratic order,” Sheehan, joined by Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent last week.
Rick de la Torre, a former CIA chief of station in Caracas, said that the decision to shield Rodríguez fits well with the Trump administration’s foreign policy goals in Venezuela.
“She’s a lifelong Marxist and was a senior leader of one of the world’s most corrupt regimes but the U.S. is providing her with breathing space and carrots to lay the foundation for democracy and U.S. investment,” said de la Torre, the CEO of Tower Strategy, which advises companies on Venezuela.
“There’s a shelf life to her utility, however. At some point she will face justice,” he added.
Rodríguez has been on DEA’s radar since 2018
The DEA had amassed a detailed intelligence file on Rodríguez dating to at least 2018, and has received allegations about her ranging from drug trafficking to gold smuggling, the AP reported earlier this year. One confidential informant told the DEA in early 2021 that Rodríguez was using hotels in the Caribbean resort of Isla Margarita “as a front to launder money,” the records show.
Her name has surfaced in nearly a dozen DEA investigations — several of which remained ongoing as recently as this year — involving field offices from Paraguay and Ecuador to Phoenix and New York. She had even been linked to Maduro’s alleged bag man, Alex Saab, whom U.S. authorities first arrested in 2020 on money-laundering charges, the records show.
Rodríguez deported Saab this month as part of a purge of insider businessmen who are accused of having enriched themselves through corrupt dealings with Maduro.
It’s unclear in which Miami investigations Rodríguez’s name surfaced. Two of the former officials said Rodríguez has also come up in meetings with investigators in Tampa, Fla., tasked last year by former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi with looking into financial crimes in Venezuela.
At the time, Rodríguez was serving as Maduro’s vice president. Justice Department policy requires the attorney general to personally approve the charging of any foreign head of state, who are normally immune from prosecution under international and U.S. law.
Halting high-profile criminal probes of foreign leaders
The pausing of the investigations into Rodríguez comes as the Trump administration has similarly tapped the brakes on ongoing federal investigations into another prominent Latin American leftist, Colombian President Gustavo Petro.
The DEA had also designated Petro a “priority target” over alleged ties to drug traffickers that had been probed for months by federal prosecutors. The New York Times reported in March that U.S. officials recently assured the Colombian government Petro does not face charges in those cases.
Duncan Levin, a former prosecutor who worked for the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, said it would be “deeply troubling” for law enforcement to be “told to stand down from a legitimate investigation for political or transactional reasons.”
“The White House cannot use criminal enforcement as a diplomatic light switch,” Levin told AP. “DOJ decisions are supposed to be based on law, evidence, policy and public safety — not on whether a foreign official is useful to the administration at a given moment.”
Goodman, Richer and Mustian write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington and Mustian from New York. AP Writer Regina Garcia Cano in Mexico City contributed to this report.
NASHVILLE — A federal judge on Friday dismissed a human smuggling case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, finding that the Justice Department’s pursuit of criminal charges was designed to punish him for challenging his mistaken deportation to El Salvador last year.
The ruling amounted to an extraordinary rebuke of a Justice Department that under President Trump has repeatedly been accused of targeting defendants for political purposes. The Trump administration touted the charges against Abrego Garcia last year at a press conference in which then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi declared, “This is what American justice looks like.”
“The evidence before this court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power,” U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, in Nashville, said in his ruling granting Abrego Garcia’s motion to dismiss for “selective or vindictive prosecution.” Without Abrego Garcia’s “successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the government would not have brought this prosecution.”
Abrego Garcia’s deportation became an embarrassment for Trump officials when they were ordered to return him to the U.S. In his motion to dismiss, Abrego Garcia claimed that the timing of the criminal charges and inflammatory statements about him by top Trump officials demonstrated that the prosecution was vindictive.
“Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a victim of a politicized, vindictive White House and its lawyers at what used to be an independent Justice Department,” his criminal defense attorneys said in a statement after Friday’s ruling. “We are so pleased that he is a free man.”
The Justice Department vowed to appeal, calling the judge’s order “wrong and dangerous.”
Crenshaw stopped short of finding the government acted with “actual vindictiveness,” a rarely met standard that usually requires evidence like a prosecutor admitting that charges were filed in retaliation against someone. But the judge did find there was enough evidence of “presumptive vindictiveness” — including the timing of the indictment, statements made by then-U.S. Deputy Aty. Gen. Todd Blanche, and the sustained oversight of the case by other top Justice Department officials — that the case against Abrego Garcia was thoroughly tainted.
The government’s own explanations weren’t convincing, Crenshaw wrote.
Abrego Garcia was charged with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling, with prosecutors claiming that he accepted money to transport within the United States people who were in the country illegally.
The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.
In the Friday ruling, Crenshaw wrote that the timing of the charges was central to the presumption of vindictiveness. Homeland Security had been aware of the traffic stop for two years and had closed the case against Abrego Garcia when it deported him. Once the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he should be brought back to the U.S., they reopened the case. While the government bore the responsibility to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness, prosecutors did not call as a witness the person who reopened the case, to explain why. Instead they offered only “secondhand testimony.”
In a statement released by the group We are CASA, which has been supporting Abrego Garcia and his family, he thanked God for the dismissal of the criminal charges.
“Justice is a big word and an even bigger promise to fulfill; and I am grateful that today, justice has taken a step forward,” he said.
Abrego Garcia’s deportation violated a 2019 immigration court order granting him protection from deportation to his home country, after the judge found he faced danger there from a gang that targeted his family. Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years although he immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. The 2019 order allowed him to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervision, but he was not given residency status.
Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have said Abrego Garcia cannot remain in the U.S. They have vowed to deport him to a third country, most recently Liberia.
MINNEAPOLIS — A judge on Thursday handed down an extraordinary prison sentence — nearly 42 years — to the former leader of a Minnesota nonprofit who was convicted in a staggering $250-million fraud case that helped ignite an immigration crackdown by the Trump administration.
Aimee Bock ran Feeding Our Future, which had claimed it helped provide millions of meals to children in need during the pandemic. The U.S. Justice Department, however, said she was atop the “single largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in the country.”
“I understand I failed. I failed the public, my family, everyone,” Bock said in federal court.
President Trump used the fraud cases against Bock and many others to initially justify a massive surge of federal officers to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area last winter, leading to a pushback by residents and the deaths of two people.
“Feeding Our Future operated like a cash pipeline, open to anyone willing to submit fraudulent claims and pay kickbacks,” prosecutors said in a court filing.
Bock had long proclaimed her innocence but was convicted last year of conspiracy, fraud and bribery.
“This case has changed our state forever,” Joe Thompson, formerly the lead prosecutor in the case, said outside the courtroom. “Aimee Bock did everything she could to earn this long sentence.”
The nonprofit sat atop a fraud network that included a web of partner organizations, phony distribution sites, kickbacks and fake lists of children supposedly being fed, prosecutors say. Dozens of people, many from the state’s large Somali community, have been convicted in a series of overlapping food fraud cases that have spent years in the courts.
Bock and co-conspirators enriched themselves with international travel, real estate purchases, luxury vehicles and other lavish spending, the government said.
Bock’s lawyer, Kenneth Udoibok, argued for no more than three years in prison, saying she had provided key information to investigators. He argued that Bock had been unfairly painted as the mastermind and insisted that two co-defendants were responsible for running the scams.
Meanwhile, authorities this week filed additional charges against others in a sprawling investigation into federal social service spending in Minnesota.
The targets include Fahima Mahamud, who was CEO of Future Leaders Early Learning Center, a childcare center in Minneapolis. Over three years, Mahamud’s organization was reimbursed approximately $4.6 million for services on behalf of people who didn’t make a required copayment, prosecutors allege.
A message seeking comment from her lawyer was not immediately returned Thursday. Mahamud was charged separately in February with fraud related to meals. She has pleaded not guilty.
Two other people were charged with conspiring to get $975,000 in Medicaid subsidies for housing services that were not provided. They’re expected to plead guilty in June, according to a court filing.
Two additional people were accused of receiving $21.1 million by billing Medicaid for autism therapy that was either unnecessary or not provided. Investigators said the two paid families as much as $1,500 per child per month to add their names to the program and get reimbursement.
Trump, who has long derided Somalis, last year blasted the state as “a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity.” He also criticized the leadership of Gov. Tim Walz, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee in the 2024 election.
“Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing. Send them back to where they came from,” Trump wrote on social media.
Bock is white and the U.S. Attorney’s Office says the overwhelming majority of defendants in the cases are of Somali descent. Most are U.S. citizens.
The immigration surge led to repeated protests and confrontations between residents and federal officers and resulted in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
As Eileen Wang and her supporters tell it, the former Arcadia mayor was led astray by a man she trusted and loved.
After chasing her political ambitions in the San Gabriel Valley suburb, Wang, 58, won a City Council seat in 2022 with the help of a campaign advisor who was also her romantic partner. Two years later, he was charged by federal authorities with secretly working on behalf of the Chinese government.
Wang, a naturalized U.S. citizen, distanced herself from her ex and remained in office, becoming mayor earlier this year. The scandal had mostly quieted — until Monday, on the eve of President Trump’s planned trip to Beijing, when a plea deal was unsealed revealing Wang’s own murky role as an agent for China.
A man walks past an empty space where a photograph of former Mayor Eileen Wang was removed in the lobby of Arcadia City Hall.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Now, Wang has become a national political talking point, with critics painting her as a calculating foreign agent who sought to infiltrate the American government and undermine democracy.
Katie Miller, wife of top Trump advisor Stephen Miller, blasted Wang on social media site X as a “spy.”
“This is pure China trying to influence U.S. politics and U.S. elections,” Katie Miller said on Fox News.
Back home, some of Wang’s former colleagues in local government say they repeatedly tried to raise alarms about her.
“There were red flags everywhere,” said Sharon Kwan, an Arcadia city council member and former mayor.
Wang admitted in her plea agreement to posting and editing web content at the request of the Chinese government — without disclosing her ties to U.S. authorities, as the law requires. She ran afoul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, a federal statute that experts said has seen ramped up enforcement over the last decade, particularly in cases involving China.
But those familiar with the law — and international espionage — said it does not appear that Wang was engaged in spycraft as it is commonly understood.
Dennis Wilder, a former senior U.S. intelligence official and professor at Georgetown University, said that, in the CIA, Wang would be referred to as “an agent of influence.”
“She’s not a spy in the Jason Bourne sense,” Wilder said, referring to the fictional American agent. “She’s not out there recruiting sources and that sort of thing. That’s not the role that they want for her. But they see this other role as extremely important.”
A man exits Arcadia City Hall on Tuesday.
(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)
A run for city council
Wang moved to the U.S. around 30 years ago, in part, she told The Times in 2024, because she wanted “freedom for speech, freedom [for] thinking.”
Her mother was a Chinese medicine and acupuncture doctor and her father was a physician in Sichuan province before working at USC, she said. Authorities have not detailed how she immigrated or her path to citizenship. She landed in Arcadia, she said, lured by what the school district in the affluent city of 54,000 could offer her two young boys.
She ran an after-school program and was involved in some community organizations, but said she did not move in political circles until shortly before her 2022 run for city council. She switched her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, which, she said, spoke more to the needs of voters in her district, where many share her Chinese roots.
“I walk about 140 days,” she said of her campaign, adding that she hit every door in her district five times. “I never stop.”
Yaoning “Mike” Sun, Wang’s former fiance, managed her campaign.
Arcadia City Councilmember Sharon Kwan stands outside the front entrance of the San Gabriel Valley suburb’s City Hall. “This is not something where we can just dismiss and pretend nothing happened,” said Kwan regarding the case against ex-mayor Eileen Wang.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Kwan, who was elected to the city council at the same time, recalled Sun as a constant presence at city meetings and events, “always with the camera.”
“Always recording, always promoting her,” Kwan said. “She was like a celebrity to him.”
Two years after Wang took office, in December 2024, federal authorities arrested Sun on suspicion of acting as an illegal agent of China.
Prosecutors accused Sun in a criminal complaint of working with another man to cultivate Wang as a political asset for the People’s Republic of China or PRC. Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles identified the other man as John Chen, describing him in a sentencing memorandum as “a high-level member of the PRC intelligence apparatus,” who had “met personally” with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Chen instructed Sun to submit reports on Wang, referred to throughout the complaint as “Individual 1,” to Chinese officials, including one the federal complaint said they referred to as the “Big Boss.” A draft of the report allegedly included a request for $80,000 to “support pro-PRC activities in the United States.” Sun was also told to tout Wang’s relationship with an unnamed U.S. congressperson, the complaint said.
Both men eventually pleaded guilty to working as unregistered agents of China, with Sun sentenced this year to four years in prison. Chen was sentenced to 20 months.
Wang spoke with Chen on the day she was elected and three more times over the next few months, according to the complaint in Sun’s case.
“You are doing a good job, I hope you can continue the good work, make Chinese people proud,” Chen told Wang, in a conversation on Jan. 23, 2023, according to the complaint in Sun’s case.
Chen and Sun also coordinated a trip to China in 2023 for Wang to meet with “leadership,” which would include stops in six different places, according to the complaint. It’s unclear whom Wang met with on the trip.
The fallout
After Sun’s arrest, Wang denied to several people that they had been engaged to marry. She said during a council meeting that their relationship ended in spring 2024.
Jolene Cadenbach, a pastor in Arcadia, said Wang confided in her that “she had been lied to” by Sun.
“I think he did a con job on her,” Cadenbach said.
The recent plea agreement gave the wrong impression about Wang, the pastor said.
“It made her sound like she was some kind of spy and it wasn’t like that at all,” she said. Wang was only following Sun’s orders, she added: “He told her to put up this site, she did it. She didn’t really investigate it.”
In a statement, Wang’s lawyers said she “apologizes and is sorry for the mistakes she has made in her personal life.” They said “she genuinely loves this city and is devoted to the people and the community within it,” but “her trust and love for apparently the wrong person… ultimately led her astray.”
Arcadia resident Sonia Martin sits on the porch of her home. Martin said she had long expressed concerns about the city’s former mayor, Eileen Wang.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
After Sun was charged in 2024, Sonia Martin and other Arcadia residents showed up at council meetings carrying protest signs. Martin said she expected Wang to be pushed out. Instead, she said, most council members appeared to unite behind Wang.
“They wanted to have this feeling of, like, everything’s great here. We’re all warm. Look at us, it’s kumbaya,” Martin said.
Kwan said she repeatedly tried to bring up the concerns of constituents to her fellow council members but was brushed off.
“Everybody was just so silent,” Kwan said. “This is not something where we can just dismiss and pretend nothing happened.”
The job of mayor rotates among Arcadia City Council members, and when it was Kwan’s turn last April, she warned during her swearing-in speech that constituents “must remain vigilant against influence of foreign governments, including efforts by the Chinese Communist Party, that may seek to shape local policy for the interests that do not align with our residents.”
Since Wang’s plea agreement became public, some have scoffed at the notion that Chinese spies would establish an outpost in Arcadia, or that the web posts she made before becoming mayor amounted to any sort of meaningful propaganda campaign.
But according to Sun’s plea agreement, local office was just the start. Prosecutors said Sun’s 2023 report for Chinese officials boasted that “during the 2022 U.S. midterm elections, I orchestrated and organized my team to win the election for city council.” He called Wang a “new political star.”
Wilder, the former U.S. intelligence official, said that sounded like a familiar strategy.
“Maybe she would end up in Congress some day or at the state government level. They invest in these folks hoping they move up the political food chain,” the Georgetown professor said. “That is part of the Chinese long game.”
‘San Gabriel Valley deserves better’
In her plea agreement, Wang admitted that from late 2020 through at least 2022, she worked with Sun to run a website called U.S. News Center that branded itself as a news source for Chinese Americans.
Wang and Sun “executed directives” from Chinese government officials, posting requested articles and reporting back with screenshots showing how many people viewed the stories, the agreement says.
Prosecutors also say Wang edited articles at the request of officials and shared information showing the reach of the posts.
“Thank you leader,” she wrote on Aug. 20, 2021, after being complimented for a post that was viewed more than 15,000 times, according to the plea agreement.
Wang never disclosed that the Chinese government had directed her to post the content, according to court documents.
That sort of low-level violation of the law is not supposed to trigger federal charges unless, according to a February 2025 memo by then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to Justice Department prosecutors, the case involved “conduct similar to more traditional espionage.” The Trump administration has pursued other high-profile foreign agent cases recently, with prosecutors winning a conviction Wednesday of a man charged with running a covert police station in Manhattan and keeping tabs on political dissidents.
When news broke of the charges and plea deal involving Wang, current and former city officials said they were not surprised.
A wall of photographs of former Arcadia mayors hang inside Arcadia City Hall. Eileen Wang is shown second from left on the bottom row. Wang admitted in court filings this week to working as an unregistered agent for China.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
“The warning signs around Eileen Wang were public for more than a year before this plea, agreement, and too many people in positions of influence defended and supported her,” April Verlato, a former mayor of Arcadia, said in a statement. “Our electeds should have represented what was best for the community and held her accountable. The San Gabriel Valley deserves better.”
Paul Cheng, mayor pro tem of Arcadia, said the council didn’t move earlier to oust Wang because a majority of its members wanted to let the federal investigation run its course.
“The public always says, ‘Why didn’t you investigate her when her boyfriend was arrested? Why didn’t you do something?’” he said.
Pedestrians walk along a sidewalk next to Huntington Drive in downtown Arcadia on Wednesday.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
But, he emphasized, “council members are not federal investigators.”
“We are not supposed to get involved,” said Cheng, an attorney. “It would make the situation 10 times worse.”
Cheng spoke highly of Wang, painting her as a committed civil servant with a passion for veterans, first responders and diversifying the businesses on Baldwin Avenue, the city’s main corridor.
“She probably attended the most events compared to all of us,” he said. “People have tried getting me to say she’s a horrible person, but I can only say what I saw, which was I thought she did a good job on council.”
Sacramento — A veteran California political consultant has agreed to plead guilty in a scheme to steal campaign funds from Xavier Becerra, now a leading candidate for governor, when he served in the Biden administration, according to filings in her criminal case on Thursday.
Dana Williamson will plead guilty to three counts, including bank fraud and lying to authorities. In exchange, the federal government will dismiss 20 other counts against her related to her tax filings and a federal COVID-era loan she received.
A court hearing is scheduled Thursday morning.
Williamson, a former chief of staff to Gov. Gavin Newsom, was arrested in November and pleaded not guilty. The government secured guilty pleas in December from two advisors who worked with alongside her to skim money from Becerra.
Prosecutors say that Williamson, Becerra’s then-chief of staff Sean McCluskie and lobbyist Greg Campbell took part in a scheme to siphon money from Becerra’s dormant campaign account and funnel it to McCluskie.
McCluskie needed the money, according to prosecutors, so he could afford to fly home frequently to see his family in California while working for Becerra, who was Biden’s health secretary, in Washington, D.C.
As part of the scheme, Williamson and another consultant charged Becerra’s account up to $10,000 a month to manage one of his dormant state campaign accounts.
Becerra approved the payments, even though he had never paid such a high amount for a similar job. He told The Times that McCluskie told him to pay the fees.
Becerra’s rivals in the governor’s race are hammering him over his decision, arguing he should have known something wasn’t right. Becerra has said that he didn’t know about the criminal behavior and has called the charges a “gut punch.”
Known as an hard-nosed and aggressive operator, Williamson’s career in politics also included working for former governors Jerry Brown and Gray Davis and mentoring other women.
McGregor Scott, Williamson’s attorney, told reporters last year that federal authorities initially approached Williamson about helping them with a probe into Newsom. She refused, he said, and was subsequently charged.
Details contained in the indictment and other public records suggest that federal authorities were looking into the state’s handling of alleged sexual harassment at Activision Blizzard Inc., a video game company.
A preliminary hearing the murder case against David Anthony Burke, the 21-year-old singer better known as D4vd, will go forward at the end of June, setting a timeline for when more detailed evidence about the gruesome murder and dismemberment of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez will become public.
Burke — who prosecutors say sexually abused the teen for a year before stabbing her to death and mutilating her corpse last year — will face the hearing on June 29, attorneys said during a brief hearing Tuesday morning.
After the singer’s arrest in April, his legal team pushed for an immediate preliminary hearing — where a judge determines if prosecutors have enough evidence to bring a case to trial — but they backed off after prosecutors began turning over what they have described as a massive amount of digital evidence linking Burke to the teenager’s brutal slaying. Burke has pleaded not guilty in the case.
The hearing is expected to last at least five days. A status conference hearing will take place on June 17.
Questions about the singer’s connection to Hernandez’s grisly end have circled since last summer, ever since her badly decomposed and dismembered body was found in the trunk of a Tesla linked to Burke. Late last month, prosecutors filed a nine-page brief laying out what they believe to be Hernandez’s final moments and Burke’s alleged horrific actions after her death.
In the filing, prosecutors said Burke stabbed Hernandez to death inside a Hollywood Hills residence after she threatened to go public about the ascendant singer’s continual sexual abuse. After killing her, Burke ordered a chainsaw, a “burn cage,” a shovel and other implements he used to dismember her remains in his garage, prosecutors alleged last week.
The motion also laid out the dramatic steps Burke went to in order to continue his relationship with the teen. In February 2024, Hernandez was reported missing to the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department by her parents, who were concerned about her involvement with Burke, according to the filing. Hernandez went home and had her phone taken away, but Burke allegedly paid a junior high school student $1,000 to give her a new device so they could stay in touch.
Prosecutors also said they found images of Hernandez naked and performing sex acts on Burke’s phone, according to the document. Deputy Dist. Atty. Beth Silverman said in court last month that search warrants turned up “a significant amount of child pornography” on Burke’s devices.
Burke’s lawyers have not commented on their defense strategy.
Eileen Wang, an Arcadia city leader facing charges of acting as an illegal foreign agent of China, resigned Monday after reaching an agreement to resolve the federal case.
Wang, who served as mayor of the San Gabriel Valley suburb, entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors over charges that she acted under the control of the People’s Republic of China to promote propaganda in the U.S. between 2020 and 2022, according to court filings.
Wang, who was previously elected to the City Council in November 2022, stepped down as mayor on Monday hours after the plea agreement was unsealed. Arcadia officials and Wang’s attorneys said the conduct described by federal authorities occurred before Wang was elected.
Wang appeared in federal court in downtown Los Angeles during a brief hearing Monday, where a judge instructed her lawyers to set a date when she would formally enter a guilty plea.
The maximum sentence for the charge is 10 years in prison.
Dressed in a blue suit jacket and skirt and accompanied by four lawyers, Wang listened to the proceeding through a Mandarin interpreter. She sniffled throughout the hearing, wiping at her eyes and her nose with her hand and a tissue.
The magistrate judge ordered a $25,000 bond and for her to surrender all of her passports and travel documents. Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda B. Elbogen asked that the judge order Wang to refrain from any communication with the Chinese government, including consular officials in the U.S.
“Individuals in our country who covertly do the bidding of foreign governments undermine our democracy,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli in a statement Monday. “This plea agreement is the latest success in our determination to defend the homeland against China’s efforts to corrupt our institutions.”
In a statement, Wang’s attorneys, Brian A. Sun and Jason Liang, said “she apologizes and is sorry for the mistakes she has made in her personal life.”
“Her love and devotion for the Arcadia community have not changed and did not waver. She asks for the community’s understanding and continued support,” her attorneys said.
The city of Arcadia’s website said Wang was “vacating her position” and the process of selecting someone to step in as mayor would begin at the next City Council meeting.
“We understand this news raises serious concerns, and we want to be direct with our community about what we know and where we stand,” City Manager Dominic Lazzaretto said in a statement. “The allegations at the center of this case, that a foreign government sought to exert influence over a local elected official, are deeply troubling. We take them seriously.”
From late 2020 through at least 2022, Wang worked with Yaoning “Mike” Sun, her former fiance, to run a website called U.S. News Center that branded itself as a news source for Chinese Americans, according to the plea agreement unsealed Monday. Both Wang and Sun “executed directives” from Chinese government officials, posting requested articles and reporting back with screenshots showing how many people viewed the stories, the agreement says.
“There is no genocide in Xinjiang; there is no such thing as ‘forced labor’ in any production activity, including cotton production. Spreading such rumor is to defame China, destroy Xinjiang’s safety and stability,” read the message from the Chinese government official, according to the plea agreement.
Minutes after receiving the link, Wang posted the article on her website and responded to the Chinese government official with a link to the article on her website, according to the court filing.
“So fast, thank you everyone,” the government official responded, the court records show.
Prosecutors also say Wang edited articles at the request of officials and shared information showing the reach of the posts.
“Thank you leader,” she wrote on Aug. 20, 2021, after being complimented for a post that was viewed more than 15,000 times, according to the plea agreement.
Wang never disclosed that the Chinese government had directed her to post the content, according to court documents.
Wang’s attorneys stressed in their statement “that the conduct underlying the information and the agreement with the government relates solely to Ms. Wang’s personal life — i.e., a media platform that she once operated with someone whom she believed to be her fiancé — and not to her conduct as an elected public official.”
Prosecutors charged Sun, a resident of Chino Hills, in December 2024 with conspiracy and acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government. Wang said her relationship with Sun ended in the spring of 2024.
Sun had also served as campaign manager for her City Council campaign to lead Arcadia, a landing spot for many Chinese and Taiwanese immigrants. Prosecutors accused Sun and his Chinese government contacts of cultivating Wang in hopes that she would rise in politics and help them strengthen China’s influence in California.
“We broke up the fiance relationship,” Wang told the City Council after he was charged. “We keep the friendship.”
Sun was sentenced in February to four years in federal prison after pleading guilty in October 2025 to one count of acting as an illegal agent of a foreign government.
Sun worked as an illegal agent for the People’s Republic of China, submitting reports to high-level government officials about work he was doing on the government’s behalf, according to a federal sentencing memorandum. This activity included combating Falun Gong, a spiritual practice banned in China, and supporters of Taiwanese independence. Sun also was accused of monitoring the then-president of Taiwan during her April 2023 trip to the U.S.
Wang said in a 2024 interview that she moved to Southern California from China 30 years ago. Her mother was a Chinese medicine and acupuncture doctor and her father was a physician in Sichuan province before working at USC, she said.
Wang appeared as usual at last week’s city council meeting, shepherding along discussions on street paving, the upcoming budget and a potential e-bike ordinance. Lazzaretto, the city manager, said in his statement that the city has conducted an internal review related to the charges and found no wrongdoing.
“We can confirm that no City finances, staff, or decision-making processes were involved,” Lazzaretto said in a statement. “We have found no actions that require reconsideration or that are invalidated as a result of these developments.”
WASHINGTON — A man accused of storming the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner while armed with guns and knives pleaded not guilty on Monday to charges that he attempted to kill President Trump and fired a shotgun at a Secret Service officer who tried to stop the attack.
Cole Tomas Allen was handcuffed and shackled and wearing an orange jail uniform when he appeared in federal court for his arraignment. Allen didn’t speak during the brief hearing. One of his attorneys entered the plea on his behalf.
Allen’s lawyers are asking U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden to disqualify at least two top Justice Department officials from direct involvement in prosecuting him because they could be considered victims or witnesses in the case, creating a potential conflict of interest.
Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro were attending the event when Allen ran through a security checkpoint and fired a shotgun at a Secret Service officer, authorities said. In a court filing last week, Allen’s attorneys argued that it creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest for Blanche and Pirro to be making any prosecutorial decisions in the case.
McFadden, a Trump nominee, didn’t rule from the bench on that question but asked Allen’s attorneys to elaborate on the possible scope of their recusal request. Defense attorney Eugene Ohm said the defense likely would seek to disqualify Pirro’s entire office from involvement in the case. Ohm acknowledged that a bid to disqualify the entire Justice Department would be unlikely.
“That would be quite a request,” the judge said.
McFadden gave prosecutors until May 22 to respond in writing to the defense’s request. The judge asked the government to specify whether it believes Pirro and Blanche could be considered victims in the case.
“That might add some clarity here,” McFadden said.
In their filing, Allen’s attorneys suggested that the appointment of a special prosecutor might be warranted.
Allen is scheduled to return to court on June 29.
A Secret Service officer was shot once in a bullet-resistant vest during the April 25 attack at the Washington Hilton hotel, which disrupted and ultimately prompted an early end to one of the highest-profile annual events in the nation’s capital. The officer fired five shots but didn’t hit anybody, authorities said.
Allen, 31, of Torrance, was injured but was not shot.
Besides the attempted-assassination count, Allen also is charged with assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon and two additional firearms counts. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted of the attempted assassination charge alone.
Allen was placed on suicide watch after his arrest, but jail officials removed him from that status after several days. Allen’s attorneys complained that he had been unnecessarily confined in a padded room with constant lighting, repeatedly strip searched and placed in restraints outside his cell.
Allen told FBI agents that he didn’t expect to survive the attack, which could help explain why he was deemed to be a possible suicide risk, a Justice Department prosecutor has said.
Allen was outfitted with an ammunition bag, a shoulder gun holster and a sheathed knife when he took a photo of himself in his room at the hotel just minutes before the attack, according to prosecutors. In a message that authorities say sheds light on his motive, Allen referred to himself as a “Friendly Federal Assassin” and alluded obliquely to grievances over a range of actions by Trump’s Republican administration.
Authorities have alleged that Allen on April 6 reserved a room for himself at the Hilton where the event would be held weeks later under its typical tight security. He traveled by train cross-country from California, checking himself into the hotel a day before the dinner with a room reserved for the weekend.
Trump was rushed off the stage by his security team at the Saturday night event and appeared at the White House two hours later, still in his tuxedo, to talk about the attack and the suspect.
“When you’re impactful, they go after you. When you’re not impactful, they leave you alone,” the president said. “They seem to think he was a lone wolf.”
MIAMI — A former Miami congressman and longtime friend of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was convicted Friday in connection with a secret $50-million lobbying campaign on behalf of Venezuela during the first Trump administration.
Jurors found Republican David Rivera and an associate, Esther Nuhfer, guilty on all counts, including failing to register as a foreign agent with the Justice Department and conspiracy to commit money laundering as part of their work for former President Nicolás Maduro’s government.
The seven-week trial offered a rare glimpse into Miami’s role as a crossroads for foreign influence campaigns aimed at shaping U.S. policy toward Latin America, one highlighting the city’s reputation as a magnet for corruption and anti-Communist crusaders among its sizable exile population.
It included testimony from Rubio, Texas Congressman Pete Sessions and a top Washington lobbyist — all of whom testified that they were shocked to learn belatedly of Rivera’s consulting contract with a U.S.-based affiliate of Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA.
In an 11-count indictment unsealed in 2022, prosecutors alleged that Rivera was tapped by then Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez — now Venezuela’s acting president — to work Republican connections from Rivera’s time in Congress to get the first Trump administration to abandon its hard-line stance and ease crippling sanctions on Venezuela.
As part of the charm offensive, prosecutors alleged, Rivera and Nuhfer, a political consultant, manipulated influential friends, including Rubio and Sessions, like “pawns on a chess board.” The goal: to try to normalize relations with the new Trump administration at a time when the Maduro government was buffeted by serious accusations of human rights violations.
“As long as the money kept coming in, they didn’t care from where,” prosecutor Roger Cruz said of the defendants during closing arguments.
‘Massive secret’ threatened to damage Rivera’s political career
But the two held onto the “massive secret” and didn’t disclose their lobbying work as required, for fear it would have ended Rivera’s political career as an anti-Communist stalwart, Cruz said.
To hide his work, prosecutors allege, Rivera also set up an encrypted chat group called MIA — for Miami — with his main conduit to the Maduro government: Venezuelan media tycoon Raúl Gorrín, who was subsequently charged in the U.S. with bribing top Venezuelan officials.
Members of the group used playful code words to discuss their activities: Maduro was the “bus driver,” Sessions “Sombrero,” Rodríguez “The Lady in Red,” and millions of dollars “melons,” according to copies of text messages presented to the jury.
“It was all about la Luz,” Cruz said, referring to the Spanish word for light, which Rivera and others repeatedly used to discuss payments from Caracas.
Attorneys for Rivera and Nuhfer said the two acted in good faith and believed they were under no requirement to disclose their work. The three-month, $50-million contract with Rivera’s one-man consulting firm, they say, was focused exclusively on luring oil giant ExxonMobil back to Venezuela — commercial work that is generally exempt from the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
Wholly distinct from that consulting work, they say, were Rivera’s meetings with Rubio and Sessions, which occurred after the consulting contract had expired and was focused on ushering in leadership in Venezuela that would be less hostile to the U.S.
“He was working every possible angle to get Nicolás Maduro out,” defense attorney Ed Shohat said during closing arguments. “There was not a word in the chats about normalizing relations.”
Nuhfer’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, likened the government’s case to the 17th century Salem witch trials, presuming ill intent that was belied by the flimsiest of evidence.
“My client does not have a dark heart,” he said.
Exxon meetings for Rodríguez
Prosecutors said Rivera used the contract with New York-based PDV USA as cover for illegal lobbying.
Once exposed, the partners tried to hide the work — backdating documents and coming up with sham agreements like one to justify a wire transfer of $3.75 million to a South Florida company that maintained Gorrín’s luxury yacht.
The political activity included setting up meetings for Rodríguez in New York, Caracas, Washington and Dallas. As part of the effort, the two roped in Sessions, who later tried to broker a meeting for Rodríguez with the CEO of ExxonMobil that had succeeded Trump’s then-secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. After a secret meeting in Caracas with Maduro, Sessions also agreed to deliver a letter from the Venezuelan president to Trump.
The outreach quickly unraveled, however. Within six months of taking office, Trump sanctioned Maduro and labeled him a “dictator,” launching a “maximum pressure” campaign to unseat the president.
However, nearly a decade later, Rodríguez has emerged as the second Trump administration’s trusted partner after the U.S. military’s ousting of Maduro.
Before being elected to Congress in 2010, Rivera was a high-ranking Florida legislator. During that time, he shared a Tallahassee home with Rubio, who eventually became the Florida House speaker.
Rivera has previously faced controversy, including allegations that he secretly funded a Democratic spoiler candidate in a 2012 congressional race. Last year, federal prosecutors dropped the case after an appeals court threw out a sizable fine imposed by a lower court. Rivera was also investigated — but never charged — for alleged campaign finance violations and a $1-million contract with a gambling company while serving in the Florida legislature.
Cole Tomas Allen, the 31-year-old Torrance man charged with trying to kill President Trump at last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner, will remain in federal jail pending trial.
Allen agreed to his ongoing detention during a brief hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. “He’s conceding detention at this time,” one of his federal public defenders, Tezira Abe, told Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya, according to CNBC.
Abe and Allen’s other public defender, Eugene Ohm, had argued in a filing Wednesday for Allen’s pre-trial release, citing his lack of a criminal record, family support and ties to his church, as well as inconsistencies and weaknesses they allege exist in the government’s case against him.
Abe and Ohm did not respond to a request for comment following the hearing.
In addition to trying to kill Trump, a terrorism-related charge that carries a potential life sentence, Allen faces two firearms charges related to his allegedly transporting two guns across state lines as he traveled from California to Washington by Amtrak train, and allegedly discharging one of those firearms — a shotgun — during the incident.
In arguing for Allen’s release in their Wednesday filing, his attorneys not only insisted he was no danger to the community, but questioned the government’s reasoning and evidence for the charges against him.
Allen was captured on a hotel video camera sprinting past U.S. Secret Service agents and into the secured event space a floor above the dinner while armed, according to prosecutors, with the shotgun, a pistol, and various knives. He then fell to the ground and was detained, according to prosecutors.
Trump administration officials who were at the dinner, including Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche and Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C., charged him swiftly — leaning heavily on an email Allen had sent to family just as he was breaching event security, which Trump and others referred to as a “manifesto” but which was titled an “Apology and Explanation.”
In that document, Allen allegedly wrote that he was targeting top Trump administration officials, with the highest ranking among them receiving top priority. He allegedly wrote that he would “go through” others at the event to get to those officials, but that he was not targeting guests or hotel staff and had chosen buck shot rather than slugs to “minimize casualties” in the room.
The charge of attempting to kill the president hung largely on that document, according to charging documents.
Blanche and Pirro also alleged that Allen had fired a shot during the encounter with Secret Service agents, in which they said a Secret Service agent was shot in the ballistic vest. Prosecutors also alleged in court that Allen had fired his shotgun, noting their recovery of one spent casing, but made no mention of a Secret Service officer being shot in the vest.
That alleged shot served as the basis for the one count of discharging a firearm.
In their filing arguing for Allen’s release, his attorneys questioned the legitimacy of both arguments.
They wrote that the government’s “sole proffered evidence” of Allen’s intent to kill Trump — the “Apology and Explanation” letter — was “far from clear” and never actually mentioned Trump by name.
“The government’s evidence of the charged offense — the attempted assassination of the president — is thus built entirely upon speculation, even under the most generous reading of its theory,” Allen’s attorneys wrote. “While the government may be able to say that the letter expresses an intent to target administration officials, it falls well short of narrowing those officials to President Trump.”
Regarding the one count of discharging a firearm, Allen’s attorneys wrote that the government “has not asserted that Mr. Allen ever fired any of the recovered weapons.” They wrote that the government, “after essentially asserting that Mr. Allen shot a Secret Service Officer in the criminal complaint, has apparently retreated from the theory by not mentioning the alleged officer at all” in its filing arguing for Allen’s ongoing detention.
In the latter document, prosecutors wrote only that an officer had seen Allen fire his shotgun “in the direction of the stairs leading down to the ballroom.” However, they provided little evidence to support that claim, other than that the shotgun held a spent cartridge in its barrel.
“In sum,” Allen’s attorneys wrote, “the government’s entire argument about the nature and circumstances of the offense is based upon inferences drawn about Mr. Allen’s intent that raise more questions than answers.”
Prosecutors, in a separate filing in the case related to evidence gathering, rejected the defense claims.
“The preliminary analysis of the crime scene is consistent with the government’s evidence that your client fired at least one shot from the 12-gauge pump action shotgun in the direction of Officer V.G., and that Officer V.G. fired his service weapon five times,” they wrote. “The government is aware of no evidence thus far collected and analyzed that is inconsistent with the above.”
They wrote that evidence suggests Allen fired his Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action shotgun “at least one time as he ran past the magnetometers on the Terrace Level of the Washington Hilton.”
They wrote that investigators recovered one spent cartridge from the chamber of the shotgun, that the “government’s preliminary ballistics and video analyses show that your client fired his shotgun in the direction of” the Secret Service officer identified only as “V.G.,” and that “at least one fragment was recovered from the crime scene that was physically consistent with a single buckshot pellet.”
Evidence in the murder case against the singer D4vd — who is charged with the brutal killing of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez — will not become public until at least late next month, after his defense attorneys pumped the brakes on a preliminary hearing that was scheduled to take place this Friday.
David Anthony Burke, 21, was charged with murder, continuous sex abuse of a minor and mutilating a corpse earlier this month after Los Angeles police stormed a Hollywood Hills home and arrested him. He pleaded not guilty last week.
The singer has long been linked to Hernandez’s disappearance and death, after her badly decomposed body was found in the trunk of a Tesla he owned at a Hollywood tow yard last September. Authorities said Hernandez was last seen at Burke’s Hollywood residence on April 23, 2025.
Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said last week that Burke killed the 14-year-old because she threatened to expose the fact that he’d been sexually abusing her for nearly a year. An autopsy report made public last week revealed Hernandez died from a pair of stab wounds. Her body was dismembered when police found it in the trunk and two of her fingers had been amputated, the report said.
Burke’s lead defense attorney, Blair Berk, said she does not believe the prosecution’s case can hold up to scrutiny and pushed for an immediate preliminary hearing during his initial court appearance. Defendants have a right to a preliminary hearing, in which a judge determines whether prosecutors have enough evidence to bring a case to trial, within 10 business days. In Burke’s case, that would have put the preliminary hearing on track for May 1.
But on Wednesday afternoon, attorney Marilyn Bednarski asked that the hearing be pushed back to May 26, citing the voluminous amount of discovery in the case. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo agreed there was “good cause” to delay the hearing a few weeks.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Beth Silverman expressed some annoyance at Bednarski and Berk’s change of heart, noting she’d already warned the defense team that prosecutors had a trove of evidence to turn over.
Silverman said last week that discovery materials would include the results of a wiretap and searches of Burke’s cellphone and iCloud accounts, which prosecutors allege turned up “a significant amount of child pornography.” Law enforcement executed 54 search warrants in the case, according to court records.
The medical examiner’s report detailing how Hernandez died was not available to the defense until last week. Prosecutors also convened three secret grand juries between November 2025 and February 2026 to collect evidence against Burke, according to Silverman. Transcripts from those hearings were under seal as of last week.
Bednarski said Wednesday she needed “additional time to review the discovery we either just got, or are about to get, in order to have a full and free preliminary hearing.”
“We told them that this was what was going to be coming,” Silverman argued in reply. “As I said in my brief, we sent out subpoenas, we’ve been preparing, we’ve been telling witnesses to cancel planned vacations.”
Berk also sought to have Olmedo seal a filing that Silverman submitted early Wednesday that laid out evidence she plans to present at a preliminary hearing.
“The prosecution has appeared to file a rather unusual pre-preliminary hearing brief that appears to be a very one-sided view of what is anticipated as the evidence in this case. But no evidence has been presented by the prosecution in a courtroom. Certainly there has been no adjudication of the admissibility of that evidence,” Berk said, expressing worry that the publication of such materials would taint future jury pools.
Prosecutors normally file such briefs ahead of trial, which include a list of witnesses they plan to call and a summary of arguments they will make. Olmedo rejected Berk’s request to seal the motion. A copy of the document was not immediately available for review at the downtown Los Angeles courthouse.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former FBI Director James Comey appeared in court on Wednesday, kick-starting a criminal case against him that legal experts say presents significant hurdles for the prosecution and will likely be a challenge for the Justice Department to win.
Comey, who didn’t enter a plea, was indicted in North Carolina on Tuesday on charges of making threats against President Trump related to a photograph he posted on social media last year of seashells arranged in the numbers “86 47.” The Justice Department contends those numbers amounted to a threat against Trump, the 47th president. Comey has said he assumed the numbers reflected a political message, not a call to violence against the Republican president, and removed the post as soon as he saw some people were interpreting it that way.
The indictment is the second against Comey, a longtime adversary of Trump dating back to his time as FBI director, over the past year. The first one, on unrelated false-statement and obstruction charges, was tossed out by a judge last year. Now prosecutors pursuing the threats case face their own challenge of proving that Comey intended to communicate a true threat or at least recklessly discounted the possibility that the statement could be understood as a threat.
The indictment accuses Comey of acting “knowingly and willfully,” but its sparse language offers no support for that assertion. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche declined to elaborate at a news conference on what evidence of intent the government has. But broad 1st Amendment protections for free speech, Supreme Court precedent and Comey’s public statements indicating that he did not intend to convey a threat will likely impose a tall burden for the government.
“Here, ‘86’ is ambiguous — it doesn’t necessarily threaten violence and the fact that it was the FBI Director posting this openly and notoriously on a public social media site suggests that he didn’t intend to convey a threat of violence,” John Keller, a former senior Justice Department official who led a task force to prosecute violent threats against election workers, wrote in a text message.
The case was charged in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the location of the beach where Comey has said he found the shells. He is set to make his first court appearance Wednesday at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., the state where he lives.
What the law says on threats
The Supreme Court has held that statements are not protected by the 1st Amendment if they meet the legal threshold of a “true threat.”
That requires prosecutors to prove, at a minimum, that a defendant recklessly disregarded the risk that a statement could be perceived as threatening violence. In a 2023 Supreme Court case, the majority held that prosecutors have to show that the “defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has found that hyperbolic political speech is protected. In a 1969 case, the justices held that a Vietnam War protester did not make a knowing and willful threat against the president when he remarked that “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J,” referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson. The court noted that laughter in the crowd when the protester made the statement, among other things, showed it wasn’t a serious threat of violence.
Regarding the current case, Merriam-Webster, the dictionary used by the Associated Press, says 86 is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of” or “to refuse service to.” It notes: “Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of ‘to kill.’ We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”
Comey deleted the post shortly after it was made, writing: “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and “I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”
What the government will try to prove
John Fishwick, a former U.S. attorney in the Western District of Virginia, said the government will likely try to prove that Comey should have known better as a former FBI director.
“I think they’re going to try to circumstantially say that you were head of the FBI, you knew what these terms meant and you said them out to the whole world as a threat to the president,” Fishwick said, though he noted that such an argument would be challenging in light of Comey’s obvious 1st Amendment defenses.
Comey was voluntarily interviewed by the Secret Service last year, and the fact that he was not charged with making a false statement suggests that prosecutors do not have evidence that he lied to agents, Fishwick said.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday that “despite being one of Comey’s longest critics, the indictment raises troubling free speech issues. In the end, it must be the Constitution, not Comey, that drives the analysis and this indictment is unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny.”
“If it did,” he added, “it would allow the government to criminalize a huge swath of political speech in the United States.”
Tucker, Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Kunzelman reported from Alexandria, Va.
