Tag Archives: Court

Anthem to pay record $115 million to settle U.S. lawsuits over data breach

The office building of health insurer Anthem is seen in Los Angeles, California February 5, 2015. REUTERS/Gus Ruelas

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) – Anthem Inc <ANTM.N>, the largest U.S. health insurance company, has agreed to settle litigation over hacking in 2015 that compromised about 79 million people’s personal information for $115 million, which lawyers said would be the largest settlement ever for a data breach.

The deal, announced Friday by lawyers for people whose information was compromised, must still be approved by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, who is presiding over the case.

The money will be used to pay for two years of credit monitoring for people affected by the hack, the lawyers said. Victims are believed to include current and former customers of Anthem and of other insurers affiliated with Anthem through the national Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

People who are already enrolled in credit monitoring may choose to receive cash instead, which may be up to $50 per person, according to a motion filed in California federal court Friday.

“We are very satisfied that the settlement is a great result for those affected and look forward to working through the settlement approval process,” Andrew Friedman, a lawyer for the victims, said in a statement.

The credit monitoring in the settlement is in addition to the two years of credit monitoring Anthem offered victims when it announced the breach in February 2015, according to Anthem spokeswoman Jill Becher, who said the company was pleased to be resolving the litigation.

The Indianapolis-based company did not admit wrongdoing, and there was no evidence any compromised information was sold or used to commit fraud, Becher said.

Anthem said in February 2015 that an unknown hacker had accessed a database containing personal information, including names, birthdays, social security numbers, addresses, email addresses and employment and income information. The attack did not compromise credit card information or medical information, the company said.

More than 100 lawsuits filed against Anthem over the breach were consolidated before Judge Koh.

The breach is one of a series of high-profile data breaches that resulted in losses of hundreds of millions of dollars to U.S. companies in recent years, including Target Corp <TGT.N>, which agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle claims by 47 states in May, and Home Depot Inc <HD.N>, which agreed to pay at least $19.5 million to consumers last year.

(Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Judge in Michigan blocks deportation of 100 Iraqis

Protesters rally outside the federal court just before a hearing to consider a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Iraqi nationals facing deportation, in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., June 21, 2017. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

By Dan Levine

(Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the deportation of about 100 Iraqi nationals rounded up in Michigan in recent weeks who argued that they could face persecution or torture in Iraq because they are religious minorities.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith in Michigan issued an order staying the deportation of the Iraqis for at least two weeks as he decides whether he has jurisdiction over the matter. Goldsmith said it was unclear whether the Iraqis would ultimately succeed.

The arrests shocked the close-knit Iraqi community in Michigan. Six Michigan lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives urged the government to hold off on the removals until Congress can be given assurances about the deportees’ safety.

The Michigan arrests were part of a coordinated sweep in recent weeks by immigration authorities who detained about 199 Iraqi immigrants around the country. They had final deportation orders and convictions for serious crimes.

The roundup followed Iraq’s agreement to accept deportees as part of a deal that removed the country from President Donald Trump’s revised temporary travel ban.

Some of those affected came to the United States as children and committed their crimes decades ago, but they had been allowed to stay because Iraq previously declined to issue travel documents for them. That changed after the two governments came to the agreement in March.

A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman could not immediately be reached for comment on the ruling.

Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the Iraqis in Michigan, said: “The court’s action today was legally correct and may very well have saved numerous people from abuse and possible death.”

The U.S. government has argued that the district court does not have jurisdiction over the case. Only immigration courts can decide deportation issues, which can then only be reviewed by an appeals court, it said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has said that people with convictions for murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, burglary and drugs and weapons charges were among the Iraqis arrested nationwide.

The ACLU argued that many of those affected in Michigan are Chaldean Catholics who are “widely recognized as targets of brutal persecution in Iraq.”

Some Kurdish Iraqis were also picked up in Nashville, Tennessee. In a letter on Thursday, Tennessee Representative Jim Cooper, a Democrat, asked the Iraqi ambassador whether Iraq would be able to ensure safe passage for them if they were returned.

(Reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco and Eric Walsh in Washington; Editing by David Alexander and Cynthia Osterman)

Three arrested at Trump inauguration sue DC over ‘police abuse’

File Photo - Protesters demonstrating against U.S. President Donald Trump take cover as they are hit by pepper spray by police on the sidelines of the inauguration in Washington, DC, U.S. on January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Adrees Latif/File Photo

(Reuters) – The American Civil Liberties Union sued police in the nation’s capital on Wednesday on behalf of three people detained during the U.S. presidential inauguration, claiming they were subjected to unconstitutional arrests, excessive force and police abuse.

More than 200 people were arrested in Washington in January after some black-clad activists among those protesting Donald Trump’s swearing-in clashed with police a few blocks from the White House, in an outburst of violence rare for an inauguration.

The lawsuit against the Metropolitan Police Department, the District of Columbia and individual officers claims the plaintiffs broke no laws at the protests and endured abuses including being pepper-sprayed and denied food and water for hours.

The plaintiffs include two individuals who came to the District of Columbia to express their views concerning the inauguration and a photojournalist who covered the demonstrations.

“The MPD’s extreme tactics against members of the public, including journalists, demonstrators, and observers, were unjustifiable and unconstitutional,” Scott Michelman, senior staff attorney for the ACLU-DC, said in a statement.

Since Trump’s election win, a number of demonstrations in U.S. cities have highlighted strong discontent over his comments and policy positions toward a wide range of groups, including Mexican immigrants, Muslims, the disabled and environmentalists.

Washington’s police department said in a statement “all instances of use of force by officers and allegations of misconduct at the inauguration will be fully investigated,” and that it will support the legal process.

It added officers worked diligently to protect the rights of thousands who came to the inauguration to peacefully express their views.

“Unfortunately, there was another group of individuals who chose to engage in criminal acts, destroying property and hurling projectiles, injuring at least six officers. These individuals were ultimately arrested for their criminal actions,” it said.

The lawsuit says photojournalist Shay Horse was pepper-sprayed while taking photographs and subjected to unjustified, invasive body probes.

It also said demonstrator Elizabeth Lagesse was peacefully protesting when she was arrested and handcuffed so tightly that her wrists bled.

(This story corrects number of people suing Washington D.C. in headline and paragraphs 1 and 4.)

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz in Austin, Texas; Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Matthew Lewis)

Anti-abortion activists lose bid to dismiss California privacy case

FILE PHOTO: Anti-abortion activist David Daleiden, waits outside Superior Court in San Francisco, California, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Lisa Fernandez/File Photo

By Lisa Fernandez

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Two anti-abortion activists charged with felony eavesdropping for secretly filming abortion providers in California lost their bid for dismissal of the case on Wednesday, but the judge ordered prosecutors to amend a criminal complaint he deemed too vague.

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite gave the state attorney general’s office until mid-July to file a revised complaint that describes the accusations in greater detail, including specific dates, alleged victims and circumstances.

Hite ruled the identities of alleged victims would remain under court seal and admonished lawyers to keep that information confidential, after the defense team for one defendant, David Daleiden, was found to have posted videos and other identifying material online.

The judge declined to take disciplinary action against Daleiden’s lawyers, as urged by prosecutors, and also denied the defense’s request to toss out the case.

Daleiden, 28, and Sandra Merritt, 64, appeared in court on Wednesday, but they are not expected to enter a plea until the arraignment on July 17, the deadline set for the amended complaint.

Each is charged with conspiracy and 14 counts of invasion of privacy for creating false identities as representatives of a fetal-tissue procurement company to infiltrate a 2014 National Abortion Federation meeting, then videotaping conference participants and others without their consent.

Daleiden and Merritt have cast themselves as targets of a politically motivated prosecution for their roles in “sting” operations that exposed Planned Parenthood and related groups to unwelcome scrutiny by conservatives in Congress during the run-up to the 2016 elections.

Defense lawyers say Daleiden and Merritt acted as “citizen journalists” employing well-worn undercover tactics of the news media.

Prosecutors counter that Daleiden and Merritt engaged in computer hacking and criminal fraud to create false IDs and a sham corporate entity to gain access to private meetings – behavior that bona fide journalists would avoid as unethical.

Daleiden became an anti-abortion movement hero in 2015 after his group, the Center for Medical Progress, circulated videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood officials trying to profit from the sale of aborted fetal tissue in violation of federal law.

The organization said Daleiden’s heavily edited videos distorted its lawful and ethical practice of seeking reimbursement only to cover costs associated with such donations.

Daleiden and Merritt were indicted in January 2016 for using illegal government IDs to covertly film a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas, but that case was dropped.

FILE PHOTO: Anti-abortion activist, Sandra Merritt, waits outside Superior Court in San Francisco, California, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Lisa Fernandez/File Photo

FILE PHOTO: Anti-abortion activist, Sandra Merritt, waits outside Superior Court in San Francisco, California, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Lisa Fernandez/File Photo

(Writing by Steve Gorman; Editing by Bill Trott and Leslie Adler)

Jury quirk in U.S. meningitis outbreak case could bring stiffer sentence

FILE PHOTO: Barry Cadden, the former president of New England Compounding Center, exits the federal courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S., March 22, 2017. REUTERS/Nate Raymond/File Photo

By Nate Raymond

BOSTON (Reuters) – Prosecutors on Monday said a quirk in the trial verdict of a Massachusetts pharmacist cleared of murder for selling fungus-ridden steroids that killed 64 people in 2012 meant that a judge could still consider the murder allegations at his sentencing.

A federal jury in March found Barry Cadden, the co-founder and ex-president of New England Compounding Center, guilty on racketeering and fraud counts but cleared him of the most serious charges, second-degree murder, for his role in a meningitis outbreak that sickened 753 people in 20 states, killing 64.

But when the 12 jurors filled out their verdict slip, rather than just checking findings of “guilty” or “not guilty,” they filled in numbers that prosecutors now say reflected vote counts showing a majority found Cadden guilty on 21 of 25 murder counts.

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Massachusetts argued in a motion filed on Monday that the verdict form showed jurors believed Cadden was guilty of murder and want the judge to consider that fact in determining his sentence on June 26.

Former prosecutors said they had never seen a verdict slip quite like it.

“While they failed to reach unanimity on these racketeering acts, the jury’s verdict confirmed that the murder racketeering acts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence in this case, and can be properly considered at sentencing,” prosecutors wrote in the filing.

Their argument might work since judges at sentencing can consider conduct proven by a standard lower than what jurors are instructed to follow to convict someone, said David Schumacher, former deputy chief of the health care fraud unit of the U.S. Attorney’s office.

“They have a very good argument,” he said. “They actually have documentary evidence prosecutors never have in criminal cases.”

A conviction on any of the 25 acts of second-degree murder Cadden faced under a racketeering law could have exposed him to life in prison. He could still face decades behind bars.

A lawyer for Cadden did not respond to a request for comment. In court papers, his lawyers have disputed that the jury did not clearly acquit him and said prosecution claims to the contrary were “wishful thinking.”

Cadden, 50, was one of only two out of 14 people indicted in 2014 connected to the scandal at the Framingham, Massachusetts-based New England Compounding Center to face murder charges. The other murder defendant, former supervisory pharmacist Glenn Chin, is scheduled go on trial on Sept. 19. He has pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors said that in 2012, the compounding pharmacy sent out 17,600 vials of steroids labeled sterile that were contaminated with mold to 23 states and that Cadden ignored the rules and put profits before patients. Cadden denied wrongdoing.

(Adds missing word “care” to 7th paragraph.)

(Reporting by Nate Raymond; editing by Scott Malone and Tom Brown)

Another U.S. appeals court refuses to revive Trump travel ban

FILE PHOTO - International travelers arrive at Logan airport following U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order travel ban in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. February 3, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

By Dan Levine and Lawrence Hurley

SAN FRANCISCO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump suffered another legal setback on Monday as a second federal appeals court refused to revive his travel ban on people entering the United States from six Muslim-majority nations in a dispute headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used narrow grounds to reject the Trump administration’s bid to undo a Hawaii federal judge’s decision blocking the temporary ban. It said the Republican president’s March 6 order violated existing immigration law. But the three-judge panel – all Democratic appointees – did not address whether it was unconstitutional discrimination against Muslims.

A second court, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge’s ruling that also blocked Trump’s 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The 4th Circuit had ruled that the ban, which replaced an earlier Jan. 27 one also blocked by the courts, “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination” aimed at Muslims.

The 9th Circuit largely left in place a nationwide injunction by Judge Derrick Watson that stopped parts of the order, which Trump said was urgently needed to prevent terrorism in the United States. That ruling came in a lawsuit challenging the order brought by the state of Hawaii, which stated the ban would harm its universities and tourism industry.

Even before Monday’s ruling, the case was on the fast track to the Supreme Court, where the administration on June 1 filed an emergency request seeking to reinstate the order and hear its appeal of the 4th Circuit ruling. The Supreme Court could act on the administration’s request as soon as this week.

Trump has been on the losing side in all four court rulings on the March order. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the administration is reviewing Monday’s decision and expressed continued confidence that the order is fully lawful and ultimately will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

“I think we can all attest that these are very dangerous times and we need every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence,” Spicer told a briefing.

The 9th Circuit upheld the block on Trump’s three-month travel ban for the six countries and four-month suspension of all refugee admissions. But the court pared back part of Watson’s injunction in order to allow the government to conduct internal reviews on vetting procedures for these travelers.

The administration said the travel ban was needed to allow time to implement stronger vetting measures, although it has already rolled out some new requirements not blocked by courts, including additional questions for visa applicants.

Rather than focusing on Trump campaign statements as the Virginia-based court did, the 9th Circuit said the language in the executive order itself did not make a rational case for why a travel ban was needed.

“The order does not offer a sufficient justification to suspend the entry of more than 180 million people on the basis of nationality,” the court wrote, referring the combined populations of the six countries.

‘ATTRACTIVE WAY’

Under immigration law, the administration was required to make findings that entry of the people in question would be detrimental to the United States but failed to do so, the court said.

Stephen Vladeck, a professor at University of Texas School of Law, said the 9th Circuit provided an easier path for the Supreme Court to keep the travel ban on hold, because it avoided entirely the controversy over Trump’s campaign statements.

“It provides a very attractive way to leave the injunction in place without setting broader doctrinal rules about which they may have pause,” Vladeck said.

Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

Monday was the deadline for the ban’s challengers to respond to the administration’s request that the order be allowed to go into effect. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents people challenging the ban in the separate Maryland suit handled by the 4th Circuit, filed court papers urging the court not to take up the case, saying the order will become moot on Wednesday, 90 days from when Trump issued it.

Lawyers for Hawaii called the order a “thinly veiled Muslim ban.”

Trump’s earlier Jan. 27 order also included Iraq among the countries targeted and a total ban on refugees from Syria. The March order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, but was blocked before it could go into effect on March 16.

The suits by Hawaii and the Maryland challengers argued that the order violated federal immigration law and a section of the Constitution’s First Amendment that prohibits the government from favoring or disfavoring any particular religion.

Hawaii’s court papers mentioned a series of Trump Twitter posts on June 5. Trump described the order as a “watered down, politically correct” version of his original one.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley in Washington and Dan Levine In San Francisco and Ayesha Rascoe in Washington; Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

‘Trial of a lifetime’ plays out in tiny South Dakota town

The welcome sign is seen for the town of Elk Point, South Dakota, U.S. June 3, 2017. REUTERS/Ryan Henriksen

By Timothy Mclaughlin

ELK POINT, S.D. (Reuters) – In this rural outpost of just over 1,900 residents, a local college student has become a courtroom sketch artist, trailers on Main Street are ersatz offices for a major law firm and members of an agricultural youth club are puzzled by a new metal detector at the local courthouse.

The changes are part of Elk Point’s selection as site of a multibillion-dollar defamation case pitting ABC News against South Dakota-meat processor, Beef Products Inc. The company contends that ABC and reporter Jim Avila defamed it by referring to its signature product as “pink slime” in 2012 broadcasts.

BPI calls its product lean finely textured beef (LFTB).

The trial, scheduled to run eight weeks, opened on Monday. ABC is a unit of Walt Disney Co.

While BPI could face an uphill battle to show ABC intended to harm the company or knew its reporting was false, as required to prove a defamation claim, several Elk Point residents interviewed by Reuters this week were sympathetic to BPI and its founder, Eldon Roth.

“I used his products and they were good products,” said one longtime resident, Jim Cody, referring to Roth. “I couldn’t believe that people were saying this crap about them.”

Mark Turner, who owns LandMark Antiques & More, sells his own beef out of a small refrigerator in the shop. BPI is an industrialized meat processor with which he has little in common, Turner said. Even so, he felt ABC unfairly depicted LFTB.

Others, like Bobbye Wendt, who was hoping the trial would bring a boost in business for her coffee shop, were torn. ABC “could have just been reporting,” she said.

During jury selection last week a handful of potential jurors were dismissed because of criticisms of LFTB, BPI or the company founders, the Sioux City Journal reported. The company’s headquarters are not in Elk Point but some 20 miles (32 km) away.

Dane Butswinkas, an attorney for ABC, acknowledged the broadcasting company has no local ties during Monday’s opening statements, but asked that jurors look beyond this and examine the facts. ABC maintains its reporting was fair and accurate.

“No one that I will put on the stand is from here,” he said. “We’re all outsiders,”

BPI has claimed up to $1.9 billion of damages, which could be tripled to $5.7 billion. The local newspaper, the Southern Union County Leader-Courier, has dubbed it “the trial of a lifetime.”

BPI has moved four modular offices into town and purchased another building. ABC is renting Cody’s Homestead, Jim Cody’s shuttered, sun-faded steakhouse, the Leader-Courier reported. ABC declined to comment on the property.

While the trial has not caused a traffic jam on Main Street as some had predicted, the Union County Courthouse was unusually busy this week.

A parade of public relations staff, company officials and lawyers wheeled dozens of boxes of files under the court’s mounted elk head after making the 30-minute drive from hotels in Sioux City, Iowa. Elk Point has only one hotel.

On Tuesday, children sheepishly asked a security guard at the courthouse if they needed to walk through the new metal detector to drop off their farm club paperwork. They did not, he said.

(Editing by David Greising and Matthew Lewis)

Two charged in U.S. with providing material support to Hezbollah

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) – Two men have been arrested and charged by U.S. prosecutors with scouting potential targets and providing material support to the Lebanese group Hezbollah, which has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.

Ali Kourani, 32, of New York City and Samer El Debek, 27, of Dearborn, Michigan, were arrested on June 1, federal prosecutors in Manhattan announced Thursday. Both have appeared in Manhattan federal court, according to prosecutors.

Lawyers for Al Kourani and El Debek could not immediately be reached for comment.

In a criminal complaint unsealed Thursday, prosecutors said Kourani attended Hezbollah-sponsored weapons training in Lebanon as a teenager in 2000 before lawfully coming to the United States in 2003. He became a U.S. citizen in 2009, going on to earn a bachelor’s and a master’s degree, the complaint said.

Prosecutors said Kourani worked for Hezbollah while in the United States, identifying potential weapon suppliers; identifying people affiliated with the military of Israel, Hezbollah’s adversary; and gathering information about U.S. airport security and about military and law enforcement facilities in New York City.

They said Kourani received additional weapons training, including on a 2011 trip to Lebanon.

In a separate criminal complaint, prosecutors said El Debek, a U.S. citizen, was recruited by Hezbollah in 2007 or 2008 and began taking a salary from the organization.

Over the years, prosecutors said, El Debek received weapons training, including in bomb-making. They said he carried out missions for Hezbollah in Thailand to clean up materials used to make explosives that had been left behind in a house, and in Panama, where he gathered information about security and the Panama Canal and Israeli Embassy.

Both men, who remain in custody, are charged with providing material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, conspiracy, and illegal weapons possession.

Hezbollah, a Shi’ite group aligned with Iran and the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department since 1997.

The cases are United States v. Kourani, No. 17-mj-4151, and United States v. El Debek, No. 17-mj-4154, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Bill Trott)

U.S. intelligence contractor pleads not guilty to leaking charge

Reality Winner, the U.S. intelligence contractor charged with leaking classified National Security Agency material is shown in this courtroom sketch during her hearing at the U.S. District Courthouse in Augusta, Georgia, U.S., June 8, 2017. Courtesy Richard Miller via REUTERS

By Rich McKay

AUGUSTA, Ga. (Reuters) – A U.S. intelligence contractor accused of illegally leaking a classified report on Russian interference in U.S. elections to a media outlet pleaded not guilty on Thursday to an espionage offense, and a federal judge denied her request for bail.

Reality Leigh Winner, 25, is accused of passing the top secret National Security Agency report to The Intercept last month while working with Pluribus International Corp, which provides analytical services for U.S. defense and intelligence.

Winner was charged in a federal grand jury indictment on Wednesday with a single count of willful retention and transmission of national defense information, a felony offense under the Espionage and Censorship Act that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

A federal judge ordered that Winner remain held without bond after prosecutors argued during Thursday’s three-hour hearing that she posed a flight risk and public danger, citing what they called “disturbing” comments found in her notebook.

In one notation she wrote: “I want to burn the White House down,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Solari told the judge. The prosecutor said investigators also found the names of three Islamic extremists known to federal authorities listed in Winner’s notebook.

According to a probable-cause affidavit from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Winner admitted to intentionally printing a copy of the intelligence report in her office and mailing it to the news outlet.

The NSA document in question provided technical details on what it said were Russian attempts to hack election officials in the United States and a voting-machine firm before the presidential election in November, two U.S. officials with knowledge of the case have confirmed to Reuters.

The FBI said unauthorized disclosure of the secret document “could reasonably result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security,” though the government has not alleged that Winner sought to share the report with foreign agents.

She is the first person charged with leaking classified information to the media since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, who has called for investigations into leaks to the media.

A White House spokeswoman said at a press briefing ahead of Winner’s detention hearing that Trump believes anyone found guilty of unlawfully disclosing government secrets should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Winner, shackled at the feet and wearing an orange jumpsuit in court, said little during Thursday’s proceeding, except to reply, “Not guilty, your honor,” when asked for her plea, and to answer “yes” and “no” to procedural questions put to her by the judge.

Winner’s parents testified in support of her request to be released from jail on bond, describing their daughter as a church-going patriot who volunteered for the military and was never previously in trouble.

“Your honor, my daughter is a good girl. She will do whatever you tell her to do if you grant her bond,” her stepfather, Gary Winner, told the judge.

Solari countered that Winner’s political agenda mattered more to her than her oath to protect secrets entrusted to her, adding that she might be tempted to flee if further charges were brought in the continuing investigation.

(Reporting Rich McKay in Augusta. Additional reporting by Dustin Volz in Washington; Writing by Jim Finkle in Toronto and Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Editing by Grant McCool and Tom Brown)

U.S. lawmakers to press intel chiefs on Russia ahead of Comey hearing

FILE PHOTO - FBI Director James Comey waits to testify to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on "Russia's intelligence activities" on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S. January 10, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

By Patricia Zengerle and Dustin Volz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Top U.S. intelligence officials will face questions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election and fallout from the firing of former FBI director James Comey when they appear at a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee’s open hearing will feature officials closely tied to President Donald Trump’s abrupt firing last month of Comey, which sparked accusations that the Republican president had dismissed him to hinder the FBI probe and stifle questions about possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the second-ranking official at the Department of Justice who signed a letter recommending Comey’s dismissal, will testify, a day ahead of Comey’s own hotly anticipated testimony in the investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. election.

Rosenstein’s public testimony will be the first since he appointed – in the face of rising pressure from Congress – former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel investigating possible links between Russia and the election.

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who took over after Comey was fired, will also be at the hearing.

The probe has hung over Trump’s presidency since he took office in January and threatens to overwhelm his policy priorities.

The Kremlin denies U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Moscow tried to tilt the election campaign in Trump’s favor, including by hacking into the emails of senior Democrats. Trump has denied any collusion.

“I know that there are going to be members who want to hear from Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about his involvement in the (Comey) firing,” Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, told Reuters.

National Security Agency Director Admiral Mike Rogers and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats will also be present at the hearing originally set to discuss a foreign surveillance law.

“My hope will be that Admiral Rogers and Director Coats won’t try to hide behind executive privilege … about the press reports about the president asking them to downplay the Russia investigation,” Warner said.

The Washington Post reported on May 22 that Trump had asked the officials to help push back against the FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and Moscow, citing current and former officials.

The two refused to comply with the request, which they regarded as inappropriate, the Post report said.

The Washington Post separately reported on Tuesday that Coats told associates in March that Trump asked him if he could intervene with then FBI Director Comey to get the FBI to back off its focus on Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser, in its Russia probe, according to officials.

The intelligence officials are also expected to defend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA — the stated topic of the hearing — which will expire on Dec. 31 unless Congress votes to reauthorize it.

Section 702 allows the NSA to collect digital communications of foreigners believed to be living overseas whose communications pass through U.S. telephone or Internet providers. Information about Americans is also sometimes incidentally gathered, such as when someone is communicating to a foreign target which privacy advocates have long argued evades Constitutional protections against warrantless searches.

U.S. surveillance practices have come under increased scrutiny amid unsubstantiated assertions by Trump and other Republicans that the White House under former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, improperly spied on Trump or his associates.

There is no evidence that political motives drove Obama administration officials to request the names of Trump associates in any intercepts. The requests underwent every required evaluation, and they produced nothing out of the ordinary, according to four current and former officials who have reviewed the materials.

(Additional reporting by John Walcott; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Lisa Shumaker)