Politics

Just 33 days ahead of the election, a top Justice Department official is warning of an “onslaught of foreign election interference” from Russia, Iran and China. 

Matthew Olsen, head of the department’s National Security Division, said in an interview with CBS News that the U.S. is facing a multi-pronged offensive from the three nations. Among the lines of attack is a barrage of propaganda from Russia to sow division in a highly polarized U.S. electorate, persistent cyber-intrusions into the campaigns of both former President Donald Trump and Vice president Kamala Harris, and a “grave” Iranian assassination plot targeting Trump. 

“They see this as a period of vulnerability for us,” Olsen told CBS Evening News Anchor and Managing Editor Norah O’Donnell. “They are looking at ways at which they can change the outcome of our election, or to find issues that divide us in ways that support their national interests at the expense of ours.”

Olsen’s comments are expected to be the Justice Department’s last word on the subject of election interference, honoring a policy of refraining from public statements in the 30 days before an election to avoid influencing the outcome. 

In a wide-ranging interview, he characterized the threats as “sophisticated,” utilizing advanced technology “to target our politics.” 

In Russia, he says malicious actors are leveraging artificial intelligence to manufacture content, such as fake videos of the vice president meant to spread disinformation. Moreover, he said, Moscow has upped its game in another way –laundering Kremlin talking points through U.S.-based social media influencers who have large online followings.Olsen described a brazen effort by Russia to help Trump win the election. 

“What we’re seeing with Russia is clearly a preferred outcome,” Olsen said. “Russia has been seeking to boost the candidacy of the former president and to denigrate the candidacy of the vice president.”

Contrary to messaging from the Trump campaign, which has consistently disputed reports of Kremlin interference, Olsen said the Russian initiative was real in 2016, and is even more robust now.

“Russian interference in the [2016] election was not a hoax. It was actually happening then. It is actually happening now,” Olsen said. “There is no question about it.” 

Olsen said the intelligence and law enforcement communities learned a lesson from 2016, when officials were highly protective of the intelligence indicating the Russians were aggressively meddling in the election. This cycle they made a conscious decision to be far more transparent with the public.  

“We’ve learned at the Justice Department, but this especially true for the intelligence community, and that is to be as open and transparent as we possibly can about the nature of the threat,” Olsen said. 

In September, the Justice Department seized 32 internet domains they say Russia used as part of their “doppelganger” online campaigns aimed at influencing elections worldwide, including the upcoming presidential election here in the U.S. Olsen pointed to the case as an example of ways the department is working to “dismantle the infrastructure” of Russia’s propaganda operation. 

The seizure targeted Russian entities, including the Social Design Agency (SDA), which since 2022 has allegedly been responsible for coming up with the propaganda strategy that included impersonating legitimate news entities, like Fox News or the Washington Post.

“They created these fake websites. They look very real,” Olsen said. “It is hard for the average American to understand the sophistication of these efforts. But that’s why we’re trying to be as transparent as possible about the nature of the threat.”

Olsen pointed to a specific case brought by the Justice Department where they uncovered “talking points” of people “at the highest level of the Kremlin, people within [Vladimir Putin’s] inner circle” who have stated their goal of Trump prevailing.  

Olsen said that in addition to its goal of bolstering Trump’s campaign, Russia is closely focused on sowing division among American voters on hot-button issues. Chief among them is the war in Ukraine, where Moscow is intent on diminishing popular support among Americans for  Ukrainian independence. 

But Olsen said that the Russians also see domestic issues as ripe targets for its disinformation campaign.  He pointed to immigration, one of the most contentious policy fights in the 2024 election. The Russians, he said, are “highlighting immigration as a wedge issue.”  

Russia is not the only country looking to “sow discord” ahead of the election. Among the Justice Department’s biggest worries, according to Olsen, is credible evidence that Iran wants to “compromise” Trump’s campaign and is actively plotting to assassinate Trump, something that he says they are monitoring “with intense focus.”

“Among the countries in the world, there are few countries that pose the range and significance of threats that Iran does,” Olsen said, noting that this effort is related to the death of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, who was killed by an American airstrike in 2020. “They are determined to retaliate for Soleimani’s killing. And they have targeted U.S. officials who they believe are responsible for that decision.”

In the past few months there were two attempts on former President Trump’s life, and in a separate case, a Pakistani national with ties to Iran was charged with allegedly plotting a murder-for-hire scheme targeting current and former U.S. officials  –a list that sources familiar with the investigation told CBS News may have included Trump. 

Olsen declined to comment about whether the government’s case against Ryan Wesley Routh, who has been charged with attempting to assassinate the former president at his Florida golf course in September, has any ties to a foreign government, citing the ongoing nature of the case. Routh has pled not guilty. 

Last month, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence briefed Trump on “real and specific threats from Iran to assassinate him.”

As for China, while the volume of activity is less than that coming out of Iran and Russia, their interest in the upcoming election seems more focused on congressional and state office campaigns, where they aim to find candidates who may fall “more in line with the interests of China,” rather than the presidential race.

Olsen said he hasn’t seen any foreign efforts to manipulate voting machines or other election infrastructure.  But one of his biggest worries is what happens in the aftermath of the election, particularly given the likely delays in determining the vote results. 

“I do think that our adversaries will continue to see this time period as an opportunity for them to shape the outcome of the election or to sow discord within the country,” Olsen said, warning, “that is really the biggest issue that I see right now.” 

The RCMP declined to investigate a suspected money laundering network connected to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) because the force determined that shutting down the scheme would have “no significant impact.”

According to documents released by the federal foreign interference commission Thursday, the RCMP was made aware of a “money laundering network that was connected to organized crime and PRC (foreign actor interference) activity.”

Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn, who is in charge of federal policing, testified that he made the decision not to pursue an investigation because it wouldn’t make much of a difference.

“When asked if a financial crime unit could investigate the network, Deputy Commissioner Flynn queried what impact a successful financial crime investigation would have on the larger problem,” a summary of his testimony read.

“Because multiple backup networks could be used for money laundering activities, it was felt that a successful financial crime investigation would have no significant impact. Deputy Commissioner Flynn ultimately refused the request because the proposed investigation was not sufficiently impactful to justify a higher prioritization.”

It’s only one vignette of the larger issue of foreign interference in Canada, the subject of Justice Marie-Josée Hogue’s federal inquiry. But it highlights two significant issues into how Canada counters the foreign influence threat: the connection between hostile powers and organized crime in Canada, and the lack of resources of federal authorities to devote to countering complex interference operations.

Get daily National news

Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.

The RCMP has a $6-billion annual budget. But that money is split between federal policing – things like white-collar crime, national security, and protecting politicians and visiting dignitaries – and everyday front-line policing in multiple provinces and territories.

The tension has long been an identified issue within the national police force, which splits itself between specialized, in-depth investigations and more mundane responsibilities like speeding tickets and law enforcement.

In 2023, the federal Liberals earmarked $48.9 million over three years for the RCMP to counter foreign interference activity. But Flynn testified that the “need for dedicated (foreign actor interference) is growing and already exceeds capacity” and “the need for additional resources is expected to increase significantly.”

Another barrier to foreign interference investigations was highlighted in the documents released by the commission Thursday: the difficulty of using information gathered by intelligence agencies as evidence in criminal prosecutions.

Intelligence agencies, both in Canada and in allied nations, collect vast amounts of information on people of interest. But not all intelligence products can be used in criminal trials – either because they don’t meet the level of evidence, or because they risk giving away how the agencies collect their information.

“(Flynn) explained that this issue can limit the RCMP’s ability to investigate (foreign actor interference)-related activities, because the RCMP generally becomes aware of these activities from intelligence, both domestic and from international partners,” the interview summary read.

“When international partners share intelligence, it generally comes with caveats requiring that the RCMP protect sensitive information from disclosure, posing a limit to the RCMP’s ability to action the received intelligence for criminal investigations.”

All these factors could help explain why, despite the findings of both Hogue’s inquiry and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) that federal candidates and some parliamentarians were wittingly participating in foreign interference operations, the country has seen no criminal prosecutions in those matters.

Hogue’s inquiry is set to hear testimony until Oct. 16, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is set to appear for a second time before lawyers. The inquiry will also hear from senior public servants, intelligence officials and cabinet ministers in the coming weeks.

Hogue’s final report is scheduled to be delivered to the government by the end of the year.

&copy 2024 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters was sentenced to 8-and-a-half years in prison and additional time to be served in the Mesa County Detention Center for a total of nine years incarceration on Thursday. She was convicted on 7 of 10 counts in her Colorado election interference case in August.

A jury found Peters guilty of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with Colorado’s Secretary of State. She was acquitted of an additional count of criminal impersonation, a charge of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and an identity theft charge. 

Peters had pleaded not guilty to all counts in 2022. The charges stemmed from Peters allowing a county security card to be misused to give a man access to the Mesa County election system and for deceiving other officials about that man’s identity. That man was affiliated with My Pillow chief executive Mike Lindell. Lindell is a prominent promoter of false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the election from Trump.

During her sentencing hearing on Thursday, Peters spoke for 40 minutes and used the opportunity to present evidence that was ruled inadmissible during her trial. She also broke down into tears when she talked about how she could not live in prison because of health issues.

“I did my best to serve this county and I hope you find it in your heart to not sentence me to… I don’t deserve to be in prison. I can do a lot more good, a lot more good out helping people,” said Peters. “If you tell me not to talk about the election, I won’t talk about the election.”  

Before he handed down his sentence, Judge Barrett told Peters that she never took her job as clerk seriously. He also admonished her for her refusal to admit wrongdoing or show remorse for her actions. 

“You’re as defiant as a defendant that this court has ever seen,” said Judge Barrett. “You’re as privileged as they come.”

The breakdown of the sentence is as follows:

Three-and-a-half-years each for counts one and four, to be served concurrently in the Department of Corrections, three-and-a-half-years for count two to be served consecutively in the Department of Corrections, 15 months for count six to be served consecutively in the Department of Corrections, 120 days for count eight to be served consecutively in the Mesa County Detention Center, six months for counts nine and 10 to be served consecutively in the Mesa County Detention Center for a total of nine years incarceration. Following her incarceration, she will serve three years of parole. 

Barrett also imposed a $2,000 fine for counts one, two, four and six and a $1,000 fine for counts nine and 10. 

During the trial, prosecutors said Peters was seeking fame and became “fixated” on voting problems after becoming involved with those who had questioned the accuracy of the 2020 presidential election results.

The case marked the first prosecution of a local election official over a suspected security breach in connection with the 2020 election. 

At the time, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser called her conviction a warning that tampering with voting processes will bring consequences.

Washington — The Supreme Court will kick off its new term Monday, taking the bench for the first time since the justices handed down blockbuster decisions over the summer on guns, a widely used abortion pill, the regulatory power of federal agencies and presidential immunity.

The upcoming term, which will stretch into June 2025, is shaping up so far to be quieter than the Supreme Court’s last. But the justices are still poised to hear cases on hot-button issues like LGBTQ rights, an age-verification law for pornographic websites and the Biden administration’s efforts to combat gun violence.

And looming over the start of the new term is the November election, which could bring legal battles over the presidential contest before the high court. The justices have already been asked to intervene in disputes over Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship voting requirements and efforts by Green Party candidate Jill Stein and independent Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to be restored to the ballots in Nevada and New York, respectively.

The court returns to the bench facing steady criticism for some of its most significant rulings, beginning with its June 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade and continuing with the July ruling granting former President Donald Trump some level of immunity from federal prosecution. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have also been under scrutiny from Congress over their adherence to ethics laws and practices.

Calls to reform the Supreme Court have followed criticism of the justices and their rulings. President Biden came out in favor of 18-year term limits and an enforceable code of ethics for the justices, as well as a constitutional amendment clarifying that former presidents are not immune from federal prosecution. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, backs the reforms and has urged Congress to act.

While the differences among the justices are typically revealed to the public through their written opinions and dissents, recent leaks to the media have provided a window into the court’s internal deliberations, and some of the justices have not shied away from voicing their frustrations. 

In addition to the shocking and unprecedented leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion reversing Roe, the New York Times reported in September on internal memos and discussions surrounding three cases that involved Trump, including the immunity ruling that has sparked significant pushback against the high court.

Lisa Blatt, a lawyer who has argued 50 cases before the Supreme Court, said during a Federalist Society event that “something does feel broken,” and observed that some of the justices “feel visibly frustrated” during oral arguments.

Here are four cases to watch in the Supreme Court’s new term:

New rules for ghost guns

On the second day of the term, Oct. 8, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok, a challenge to a regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that imposed requirements on the makers and sellers of untraceable firearms known as ghost guns. The case doesn’t involve the Second Amendment, but instead revolves around whether the ATF went too far when it issued its measure regulating the weapons.

Ghost guns are unserialized firearms that can be assembled from kits sold online, and there has been a surge in the number of these firearms recovered by law enforcement each year, according to the Biden administration. 

Implemented by the ATF in April 2022, the rule amended the definition of “firearm” under the 1968 Gun Control Act to include certain weapon parts kits. It also clarified that partially complete frames and receivers that can be converted into functional firearms qualify as regulated weapons.

The measure subjects covered manufacturers and sellers to the same rules that apply to commercial gun sales and requires them to obtain licenses, mark their products with serial numbers, run background checks and keep purchase records. It applies to all untraceable firearms, including those made with 3D printers or sold as assembly kits.

Shortly after the rule took effect, a group of gun owners, advocacy groups and ghost gun distributors sued the ATF, arguing it overstepped its authority. The challengers prevailed before a district judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which invalidated the portion of the rule defining “frame or receiver” and found the 1968 Gun Control Act’s definition of “firearm” doesn’t include weapon parts kits.

The Biden administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and is urging the justices to reverse the 5th Circuit.

The justices have already intervened in the case on an emergency basis. In a divided 5-4 decision, the high court paused the district court’s decision invalidating the rule, allowing it to take effect while litigation played out. Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with the three liberal justices in allowing the Justice Department to enforce the measure.

That order will remain in place until the Supreme Court issues a decision in the case, expected by the end of June 2025.

An Oklahoma death row inmate’s bid for a new trial

Death row inmate Richard Glossip’s bid for a new trial will be before the justices on Oct. 9. The case is known as Glossip v. Oklahoma, and it’s unique in the fact that the state’s Republican attorney general has argued that Glossip’s murder conviction and death sentence shouldn’t stand because of issues with his trial.

Nine execution dates have been set for Glossip and he has had his “last meal” three times, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. His most recent execution date was in May 2023, but the Supreme Court blocked it after the attorney general, Gentner Drummond, said he didn’t receive a fair trial.

Glossip was convicted in the 1997 killing of Barry Van Treese, the owner of the motel where he worked. He was found guilty in two different trials, though his first conviction was reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel. In both instances, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Glossip’s co-defendant, Justin Sneed, who admitted to robbing and killing Van Treese but said Glossip hired him to carry out the murder.

Sneed was sentenced to life in prison.

An independent counsel investigated Glossip’s case and raised issues with Sneed’s credibility as a witness. Evidence previously withheld by the state and made available to the defense in January showed that Sneed was evaluated by a jail psychiatrist and diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder in 1997, after the murder and while he was in jail. Sneed was prescribed lithium by the psychiatrist. Interview notes from 2003, which Drummond said were not turned over by the state, indicated the prosecutor knew about Sneed’s treatment.

The attorney general said Sneed testified during Glossip’s second trial in 2004 that he had never seen a psychiatrist. That information, as well as that he received lithium for a psychiatric condition, may have impacted how the jury viewed Sneed as a witness, according to the attorney general.

Drummond told the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board in April that he supported clemency for Glossip, citing the independent reviews of the case that suggested he receive a new trial. But the parole board voted not to recommend clemency. The attorney general also asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to wipe away Glossip’s conviction, though it, too, rejected the request.

This is not the first time Glossip has been before the Supreme Court. In 2015, he unsuccessfully challenged Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol. Justice Neil Gorsuch is sitting out of the court’s consideration of the case, likely because of his prior stint as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which covers Oklahoma.

Tennessee’s ban on sex-transition treatments 

The most closely watched case of the term, U.S. v. Skrmetti, involves a Tennessee law that bans certain sex-transition treatments for minors experiencing gender dysphoria. A decision could have wide-ranging impacts — more than 20 states have enacted laws in recent years limiting access to treatments like puberty-blocking drugs, hormone therapy or surgeries.

Tennessee’s law, SB1, was enacted in March and bars health care providers from prescribing, administering or dispensing any puberty blocker or hormone if the treatment is meant to “enable a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” 

Puberty-blockers or hormones can also be used to treat conditions like precocious puberty, disease, a congenital defect or physical injuries.

The law took effect in July 2023, but it allowed covered treatments that began before then to continue until March 31.

Two transgender boys and one transgender girl, all of whom were diagnosed with gender dysphoria and received gender-affirming care, challenged the ban, arguing it violates the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection of the laws. The Justice Department also intervened.

A federal district court blocked the law, finding it was likely unconstitutional, but a divided panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed the decision.

The Justice Department and transgender teenagers then appealed to the Supreme Court, and the justices agreed to hear the Biden administration’s challenge. But if Trump defeats Harris in November, the Justice Department will likely change its position in the case once he takes office. Arguments have not yet been scheduled.

The dispute thrusts the justices into the culture wars, as Republican-led states have in recent months taken steps that critics argue are restricting transgender rights. In addition to the laws barring treatments for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, states have prohibited transgender girls from playing on female sports teams. Some red states have also challenged the Biden administration’s new rules protecting transgender students from discrimination under Title IX.

Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, told reporters during a preview of the Supreme Court’s term that the challenge to Tennessee’s law has a “huge impact” on the future of litigation on behalf of LGBTQ individuals.

“The resolution of this case is critical for access to this health care across the country,” he said, calling the legal battle an “inflection moment” of whether the court will clarify that transgender people are covered by the Constitution and civil rights laws.

Age-verification for pornographic websites 

Although no date has been set for arguments, the case known as Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton involves a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify the ages of their visitors.

The dispute began with the enactment of Texas House Bill 1181 in June 2023, which seeks to prevent minors from accessing sexual content online. The law requires any website where one-third of their content is harmful to minors to verify that every user attempting to access that content is at least 18 years old.

Websites covered by the law must also display health warnings about the alleged psychological risks of pornograpy. Social media platforms and search engines are not covered by the age-verification law. Violators may face civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day, and if a minor accesses sexual material, the state can seek an additional $250,000 per violation.

Texas is not the only state with such a law in effect — Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia all require covered websites to verify the ages of their visitors.

The Free Speech Coalition, a trade group for the adult entertainment industry, as well as a group of companies that operate pornography websites, challenged the Texas law, arguing it violates the First Amendment.

The challengers prevailed before a federal district court, which blocked enforcement one day before the measure was set to take effect. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit then upheld the law, finding that the age-verification requirement doesn’t violate the First Amendment.

“The central issue in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is whether adults’ access to speech that is fully protected but disfavored by the government can be burdened in the name of protecting kids,” said Vera Eidelman, a staff attorney with the ACLU, which is representing the Free Speech Coalition. “Another way to think about it is whether adults in America will continue to have the right to freely access sexual content online.”

One issue in the dispute is the level of scrutiny the district court applied when evaluating the constitutionality of the law. The court of appeals said the proper standard was rational-basis review, the minimum level of scrutiny, and found the age-verification requirement is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in preventing minors’ access to pornography.” 

But the Free Speech Coalition argues it should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review that courts use.

The Supreme Court has already declined a request for emergency relief, which would’ve blocked Texas from enforcing the law during legal proceedings.