The federal prosecutor who helped lead the largest federal criminal case in American history has resigned his position in the Justice Department.
Longtime Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Rosen, the chief of the Justice Department’s Capitol Siege Section, has departed for a post with a private law firm.
In an interview with CBS News, Rosen said President Trump’s pardons of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol rioters continue to shock and alarm the federal investigators who handled the cases.
“The message that [the pardons] send is that political violence towards a political goal is acceptable in a modern democratic society,” Rosen said. “That, from my perspective, is anathema to a constitutional republic.”
Rosen helped oversee a team of Justice Department attorneys as the agency grappled with an historically large onslaught of criminal cases after the Capitol riot, which injured dozens of police officers and caused millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol complex.
He said the president’s decision to pardon all — not just some — of the Capitol riot defendants was a stunning decision that has caused damage.
“It sends a terrible message to the American people,” Rosen said. “Individuals who were duly — and appropriately — convicted of federal crimes ranging in culpability are immediately let loose without any supervision, without any remorse, without any rehabilitation to civil society.”
Rosen handled a range of criminal cases during his tenure at the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the District of Columbia, one of the largest and most powerful of the federal prosecutors’ offices in the nation. In addition to drug and gun crimes, Rosen took on responsibility for the section handling Jan. 6 cases. He was a lead prosecutor in the case of Leo Kelly, an Iowa man who was convicted at trial in May 2023.
He took note of the Justice Department’s remarkable success rate in Jan. 6 trials, securing partial or full convictions in 100% of jury trials. Rosen blasted criticism from Trump supporters who allege the juries were biased or the prosecutions were politicized.
“The reason those juries convicted — and the reason those judges convicted individuals — was not because of some bug in the due process,” Rosen said. “It was because the evidence was overwhelming. It was the most videotaped crime in American history.”
Soon after Mr. Trump’s Inauguration-Day pardons of the Jan. 6 defendants, Justice Department officials demoted or fired some of the prosecutors who handled the Jan. 6 prosecutions and disbanded the Capitol Siege Section. Critics have accused the administration of seeking vengeance or revenge, targeting attorneys with solid track records.
“To see those talented prosecutors be marginalized or removed from office is an affront to the independence of the department,” Rosen said.
The Justice Department and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Rosen will soon be starting his new job as attorney at the Rogers, Joseph O’Donnell law firm in Washington, D.C. He told CBS News, “I felt like it was time for a change — and a time to take what I’ve been doing and what I’ve learned over the course of 15 years in state and federal practice — and bring it to the private sector, where I can benefit clients who are being scrutinized by the government.”
Scott MacFarlane is CBS News’ Justice correspondent. He has covered Washington for two decades, earning 20 Emmy and Edward R. Murrow awards. His reporting has resulted directly in the passage of five new laws.
Lead Capitol attack prosecutor resigns, saying Jan. 6 pardons sent “terrible message” – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Greg Rosen, a federal prosecutor who helped lead the largest federal criminal case in American history, has resigned his position in the Justice Department. Scott MacFarlane spoke to Rosen about his decision.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Boeing has reached a $1.1 billion deal with the Department of Justice that will allow it to avoid prosecution for two crashes involving its 737 Max jetliners that killed a total of 346 people.
Boeing will be required to invest that money in improving the aviation giant’s compliance, safety and quality program, while $445 million will be set aside to provide compensation for the families of the victims killed in the crashes, the Justice Department said.
The agreement stems from the crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 in 2018 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in 2019. The deal will allow the company to avoid criminal prosecution for allegedly misleading U.S. regulators about the 737 Max jetliner before the crashes, according to court papers filed Friday.
A statement issued on behalf of some relatives of those killed in the crashes blasted the government’s deal with Boeing, saying the families felt “tremendous grief and even anger” at the agreement.
“This kind of non-prosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history. My families will object and hope to convince the court to reject it,” Paul Cassell, a professor at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law who is representing the families, said in the statement.
The Justice Department defended the agreement. “After careful consideration of the families’ views, the facts and the law, the department’s principles of federal prosecution and the professional and ethical obligations of prosecutors, it is the government’s judgment that the agreement is a fair and just resolution that serves the public interest,” the court papers state.
Boeing didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Many relatives of the passengers who died in the crashes have spent years pushing for a public trial, the prosecution of former company officials and more severe financial punishment for Boeing.
“Nothing will diminish the victims’ losses, but this resolution holds Boeing financially accountable, provides finality and compensation for the families and makes an impact for the safety of future air travelers,” the Justice Department said in a statement.
Aimee Picchi is the associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and personal finance. She previously worked at Bloomberg News and has written for national news outlets including USA Today and Consumer Reports.
Washington — The Justice Department said Wednesday that it is starting the process of dismissing lawsuits against police departments in Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, bringing an end to investigations launched during former President Joe Biden’s administration. It will also put an end to proposed accountability agreements with the departments.
The Trump administration said the consent decrees proposed by the Biden administration sought to subject the Louisville and Minneapolis police departments to sweeping terms that went beyond accusations of unconstitutional conduct and would have led to “years of micromanagement” of local departments.
“Overbroad police consent decrees divest local control of policing from communities where it belongs, turning that power over to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, often with an anti-police agenda,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a statement. “Today, we are ending the Biden Civil Rights Division’s failed experiment of handcuffing local leaders and police departments with factually unjustified consent decrees.”
In addition to taking steps to dismiss the lawsuits against the Louisville and Minneapolis police departments, the Trump administration also said it is closing investigations into police departments in Phoenix; Trenton, New Jersey; Memphis; Mount Vernon, New York; Oklahoma City and the Louisiana State Police. The Trump administration said it is retracting the Biden administration’s findings of unconstitutional violations by all of the eight named departments.
The Justice Department’s decision to drop the lawsuits against the Louisville and Minneapolis departments comes just days before the five-year mark since Floyd’s death. Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer, was convicted in state court on murder and manslaughter charges for Floyd’s killing and went on to plead guilty in a federal civil rights case.
In a filing with the federal court in Minnesota in the case against the city of Minneapolis, Justice Department lawyers said that the government “will no longer prosecute this matter.”
“After an extensive review by current Department of Justice and Civil Rights Division leadership, the United States no longer believes that the proposed consent decree would be in the public interest,” the filing, signed by Dhillon and others, reads.
Consent decrees were used in federal investigations of law enforcement agencies during the Obama administration as part of a renewed commitment to civil rights issues and accountability in policing. But the Justice Department during the first Trump administration restricted their use. That policy was rescinded during the Biden administration. Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland subsequently opened the investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department.
The yearslong examination by the Justice Department was launched in 2021, in the wake of Floyd’s death, and found that the Minneapolis Police Department disproportionately targeted Black and Native American people in law enforcement activity and used unjustified force in many instances.
The probe was undertaken to determine whether the department engaged in a “pattern or practice” of unconstitutional or unlawful policing. That civil investigation was separate from a federal criminal probe into Floyd’s death, which led to convictions of three Minneapolis police officers who were found to have failed to step in to stop Chauvin’s use of force against Floyd.
Investigators had recommended nearly 30 remedial measures and improvements for Minneapolis to implement to combat racial disparities and excessive use of force by the department, such as enhanced training and accountability measures, and improved data collection of police activity.
The city of Minneapolis and the Justice Department had entered into an agreement in principle to reach a court-authorized consent decree, which would have formalized the federal findings and recommendations, and appointed an independent monitor for the police department.
As for the Louisville Police Department, the Justice Department’s investigation found that it, too, likely engaged in a pattern of conduct that violated citizens’ civil and constitutional rights. The Justice Department, city of Louisville and its police department reached an agreement in principle toward a consent decree.
Four Louisville Metro Police Department officers faced federal charges in connection with Taylor’s death in March 2020. Taylor, a 26-year-old EMT, was shot when officers stormed into her apartment while she was asleep with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend, who thought the officers were intruders, fired a handgun as they entered. The officers in response fired 22 shots into the apartment, and one struck Taylor in the chest.
But in announcing the decision to dismiss the lawsuits against the Minneapolis and Louisville police departments, the Justice Department under President Trump claimed they accused the agencies of engaging in patterns of unconstitutional policing by “wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination and heavily relying on flawed methodologies and incomplete data.”
The Trump administration also said the consent decrees went too far and would have subjected the police departments to sweeping oversight.
“In short, these sweeping consent decrees would have imposed years of micromanagement of local police departments by federal courts and expensive independent monitors, and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of compliance costs, without a legally or factually adequate basis for doing so,” the Justice Department said.
Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.
DOJ investigating former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo over COVID-19 testimony to Congress – CBS News
Watch CBS News
The Justice Department is investigating former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Two officials told CBS News the criminal investigation centers on his testimony to Congress regarding his response to the pandemic. Cuomo is running for NYC mayor.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
The Justice Department has opened an investigation into former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo concerning his testimony to Congress during the COVID-19 pandemic, two officials familiar with the matter told CBS News Tuesday.
The investigation comes months after the DOJ dropped charges against current New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Both Adams and Cuomo are running for mayor in the upcoming election.
The news was first reported by The New York Times.
The Justice Department had no comment when reached by CBS News.
In a statement, Rich Azzopardi, a Cuomo spokesperson, said the former governor has not had any contact from law enforcement about the case or received any subpoenas.
“We have never been informed of any such matter, so why would someone leak it now?” Azzopardi said. “The answer is obvious: This is lawfare and election interference plain and simple—something President Trump and his top Department of Justice officials say they are against.”
“Governor Cuomo testified truthfully to the best of his recollection about events from four years earlier, and he offered to address any follow-up questions from the Subcommittee — but from the beginning this was all transparently political,” he added.
This is a developing story, please check back for updates.
The U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office Monday to inform him they’ve opened an investigation into the city’s hiring practices.
The letter, dated Monday, accuses the City of Chicago of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its hiring practices for state and local government employees.
The letter says Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the investigation be opened based on information “suggesting that you have made hiring decisions solely on the basis of race.”
The DOJ letter was a lightning-fast reaction to comments made by Mayor Johnson on Sunday at the Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn. The mayor talked at the church about the number of Black officials in his administration.
This was the comment that set the investigation in motion:
“The deputy mayor is a Black woman. The Department of Planning and Development is a Black woman. Infrastructure deputy mayor is a Black woman. Chief operations officer is a Black man. Budget director is a Black woman. Senior advisor is a Black man. And I’m laying that out because when you ask, how do we ensure that our people get a chance to grow their business? Having people in my administration that will look out for the interest of everyone — and everyone means you have to look out for the interest of Black folks, because that hasn’t happened.”
The Justice Department citing that exact moment in a letter to Mayor Johnson on Monday.
“Considering these remarks, I have authorized an investigation to determine whether the City of Chicago is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination as set forth above,” wrote Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general with the DOJ Civil Rights Division. “If these kind of hiring decisions are being made for top-level positions in your administration, then it begs the question whether such decisions are also being made for lower-level positions.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights act prevents employment discrimination, but there are major exceptions to it. These include hiring at churches, and political appointments — like Johnson’s senior staff whom he listed Sunday.
“They would not be employees under Title VII, so even if it were true that he was going out of his way to hire people of a particular race, that would not violate the law,” said Carolyn Shapiro of the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Shapiro said the DOJ assumption that since Johnson’s senior staff is mostly Black, there is discrimination at play, is a leap.
“It’s an enormous leap to say that because Brandon Johnson’s top deputies and policymaking positions are African American, that the city is discriminating on the basis of race in its hiring of ordinary, non-policy making employees,” said Shapiro.
Mayor Johnson has previously been called to Capitol Hill by conservative legislators who are angry over Chicago’s sanctuary city status. The mayor has also been a repeated target of the Trump White House, and has compared President Trump’s policies to terrorists.
Mayor Johnson’s team released this statement late Monday:
“Mayor Johnson is proud to have the most diverse administration in the history of our city. Our administration reflects the diversity and values of Chicago. Unfortunately, the current federal administration does not reflect either. We are aware of the letter issued by the Department of Justice, but are awaiting the official receipt of the letter. Our Corporation Counsel will review it at that time.”
Late Monday, Mayor Johnson’s team offered the racial makeup of his 105-employee staff:
34% are Black.
30% are white.
23% are Hispanic.
7% are Asian
5% are two or more ethnicities
The DOJ is asking the mayor to reach out to continue the investigation, and to provide materials to them as needed.
Sara Tenenbaum is the Senior Digital Producer for CBS News Chicago covering breaking, local and community news in Chicago. She previously worked as a digital producer and senior digital producer for ABC7 Chicago.
Snippets from a 2023 interview that led Justice Department special counsel Robert Hur to describe former President Joe Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory” were obtained and published by Axios Friday, showing Biden’s halting tone of voice and difficulty remembering dates.
CBS News has confirmed the audio matches the transcript of the interview released by the Biden White House in 2024.
In one four-minute clip, Biden was asked by Hur’s team — which was investigating Biden’s handling of classified records — about where he kept his documents shortly after leaving office as vice president. Biden’s response is marked by long pauses, and his voice appears hoarse at times. His speech is especially halting as he describes the period around his son Beau’s death.
In the audio obtained by news outlet Axios, Biden can also be heard struggling to remember the year when Beau died or the year when President Trump was first elected. Members of his staff can be heard correcting him or reminding him of the date.
In response to the audio, Biden spokesperson Kelly Scully told CBS News in a statement, “The transcripts were released by the Biden administration more than a year ago. The audio does nothing but confirm what is already public.”
Biden’s verbal delivery was a key part of Hur’s report. The special counsel wrote in February 2024 that Biden sounded like a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Hur said it’s a view jurors may share, making it hard to convict Biden of knowingly holding sensitive documents at his home and office. Hur’s report noted “significant limitations” to Biden’s memory, including his difficulty remembering when his son died.
Hur recommended against charging Biden with a crime, though he did conclude that Biden “willfully” retained government documents.
At the time, Biden and his allies reacted furiously to Hur’s report — especially the “elderly man with a poor memory” line and the comment about Beau Biden’s death.
“There’s even a reference that I don’t remember when my son died. How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself it wasn’t any of their damn business,” Biden said last year. “I don’t need anyone to tell me when he passed away.”
Biden’s personal attorney Bob Bauer called the report a “shabby piece of work” filled with “totally inappropriate and pejorative comments.” The Biden White House counsel’s office asked Hur’s team to revise the report, calling its references to Biden’s memory “inflammatory.”
The report was released as concerns swirled about then-80-year-old Biden’s age and fitness to run for another term, though at the time, Democratic officials publicly backed Biden and slammed Hur. Republicans, meanwhile, cited the report as evidence of Biden’s fading cognitive abilities and pushed for audio of the interview to be released.
But months later, Biden’s rocky June debate against Mr. Trump — in which he repeatedly struggled to complete his sentences — reignited worries about his age, leading to Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race amid pressure from his party.
Biden’s decisions during that period have drawn new scrutiny in recent weeks, as books that offer glimpses inside his campaign hit the shelves. Some of the books describe Biden’s struggles with age, his aides’ maneuvers to keep him in the race and the abrupt shift from Biden to eventual nominee Kamala Harris weeks after the Trump-Biden debate.
Biden has strongly denied any lapses in his cognitive ability, telling “The View” last week, “there’s nothing to sustain that.”
The collapse of the nomination of Edward Martin as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — and the surprise announcement of FOX News personality Jeanine Pirro as his replacement — has triggered a unique and mixed wave of reaction from former prosecutors, President Trump’s critics and people involved in the U.S. Capitol riot prosecutions.
The selection of Pirro, an ardent loyalist of Mr. Trump and a cable news fixture who spread claims of a rigged 2020 election, has triggered a wave of criticism from some Democrats. But the implosion of Martin’s nomination for the top D.C. prosecutor post has drawn celebratory statements from Mr. Trump’s other critics and potentially softened some of the backlash against the choice of Pirro.
Martin, a “Stop the Steal” advocate and MAGA political activist, was among the crowd outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He defended Capitol riot cases, including the case of an accused Nazi-sympathizer, and made frequent appearances on Russian-linked media outlets and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones‘s program.
Named acting U.S. Attorney on Inauguration Day 2025 by Mr. Trump, Martin promptly fired prosecutors who handled some of the Jan. 6 criminal cases. In the weeks before it became clear his confirmation was blocked by at least one Republican Senator, Martin frequently posted on social media, including one X post in which he controversially referred to U.S. Attorneys as “Trump’s lawyers.”
“Ed Martin’s appointment was about rewriting the history of January 6, so having him specifically gone is a huge step forward, even if he’s replaced by another TV lawyer,” said Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department attorney who handled Jan. 6 criminal cases.
Ballou, who a year ago was immersed in the Capitol riot case of a group from Lakeland, Florida, who’d gone on the run from authorities shortly after their charges were filed, told CBS News that Martin is better suited for a position where, instead, “He can just tweet.” Ballou resigned from his position shortly after Martin was named acting U.S. Attorney in January.
As for Martin’s would-be successor, Pirro — who is a former judge and prosecutor — Ballou said, “I think these TV lawyers will struggle to get the respect of the judges.”
Although Congressional Democrats issued waves of statements and comments criticizing Martin, the response to Pirro’s selection was more muted in its first 48 hours.
Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who led opposition against Martin’s nomination, responded tersely to Pirro’s selection, posting on social media, “Because the other Fox News host in this administration is doing such a stellar job.”
Judge Jeanine Pirro in New York City.
/ Getty Images
One former assistant U.S. Attorney who worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia told CBS News there were no immediate red flags about Pirro that compared to concerns about Martin.
Another former assistant U.S. Attorney said Pirro would have to shift from her provocative TV pronouncements to abide by the Justice Department’s tradition of not “tarnishing someone’s name in public until we can prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt, they committed a crime. Yet on her show, Pirro has time and time again amplified truly wild conspiracy theories.”
Sen. Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican who publicly declared his opposition to Martin’s nomination, promptly posted a statement of support for Pirro, an indication that GOP opposition might be non-existent for her service as U.S. Attorney.
Michael Caputo, an aide to Martin, told CBS News, “Many of us are angry that Senator Tillis broke faith with President Trump, but Jeanine Pirro is a tremendous pick as successor to Ed Martin. I’m also excited for Ed’s next role with the Justice Department. I’m definitely buying more popcorn.”
Martin will instead be assigned to a Justice Department task force and will serve as a pardon attorney.
Edward Martin in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2025.
Photo by Valerie Plesch/For The Washington Post via Getty
The U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C. has a unique portfolio, including federal corruption cases, high-profile defendants and a large set of local criminal prosecutions in the D.C. Superior Court. Pirro will be handling a distinctively broad set of cases, ranging from government fraud to local burglaries and domestic violence.
In the days after the announcement, the response to Pirro’s nomination fell along party lines.
Patrick Mara, a Republican party leader in Washington, D.C., told CBS News: “I am optimistic on her nomination and hope she uses her prosecutorial experience to the fullest extend to crackdown on violent crime in D.C.”
“We look forward to working with her on this. The D.C. Council has created an environment where violent crime is able to flourish,” Mara said.
Rep. Glenn Ivey, a Maryland Democrat who once served as a federal prosecutor, told CBS News that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is a very important posting.
“From local violent crimes and community intervention programs to national security matters and the January 6th insurrectionists, this prosecutor’s job needs serious courtroom skills, managerial experience and sound judgement not just looking good on a TV talk show, salacious soundbite or worse yet – uttering of outright falsehoods on voting machines or other issues important to the American people,” he said.
For Jan. 6 victims and police responders, the collapse of Martin’s nomination outweighed concerns about Pirro.
“I’m glad that Mr. Martin won’t be serving the people of Washington, D.C,” Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer who testified at a public hearing of the Jan. 6 Select Committee, told CBS News. “For him to even have been nominated is disgusting considering how he feels about January 6th.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who was a member of the Jan. 6 committee, was critical of Martin, but also has blasted the selection of Pirro.
“The U.S. Attorney in D.C. should have unquestioned commitment to justice, public integrity and the truth,” he said. “Jeanine Pirro has used her platform at Fox News to promote dangerous conspiracy theories and to traffic in election lies so outlandish they landed her network in court and cost it hundreds of millions of dollars. America deserves a serious public lawyer of the highest scruples, not another election-denying Fox Corporation propagandist.”
The Justice Department did respond to requests for information about the timing of a transition from Martin to Pirro at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C.
Scott MacFarlane is CBS News’ Justice correspondent. He has covered Washington for two decades, earning 20 Emmy and Edward R. Murrow awards. His reporting has resulted directly in the passage of five new laws.
Washington — The Justice Department on Friday reversed a Biden administration policy that prevented federal officials from seeking journalists’ records and compelling their testimony in leak investigations.
Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated that reporters’ records could be subpoenaed for reasons broader than unauthorized disclosures of classified information, according to an internal memo obtained by CBS News. Bondi said the reversal was necessary for “safeguarding classified, privileged, and other sensitive information.” The memo also decried leaks that “undermine” President Trump’s agenda.
“This Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people,” Bondi said.
“This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop,” she said.
Bondi said she supports a free and independent press and the Justice Department would only subpoena reporters’ records as a last resort. Under the new rules outlined in the memo, subpoenaed journalists are entitled to advance notice, subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn” and warrants should “limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities.” Bondi said she must approve all efforts to question or arrest journalists.
During the Trump administration, prosecutors obtained the phone records of journalists at CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post as part of leak investigations, all three outlets reported in 2021, citing disclosures from the Biden-era Department of Justice.
In 2022, attorney general Merrick Garland issued regulations that restricted federal prosecutors from seizing reporters’ communications records, except in rare cases.
Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter at CBSNews.com, based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked for the Washington Examiner and The Hill, and was a member of the 2022 Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellowship with the National Press Foundation.
