Noticias

Journalists covering Rep. Nellie Pou (D-North Haledon)’s competitive race for re-election got a bombshell in their inboxes this morning from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). A “leaked memo” from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) laid out Democrats’ radical vision for America if they retake the House in 2026: open borders, bans on gas-powered cars, government-mandated wokeism, and more.

The catch: the memo was written by the NRCC as a spoof of what they say will happen if Democrats flip control of Congress, and has nothing to do with the DCCC – let alone Pou herself.

The memo lays out Democrats’ supposed eight-point “Project 2026” plan under headings like “Open Borders. Full Stop” and “End Fossil Fuels, Gas Stoves, Cars, and Common Sense.” Some of the positions it lays out aren’t far off of real Democratic positions, like impeaching President Donald Trump – some Democrats did indeed make an impeachment effort earlier this year, though Pou voted against it – while others are further afield, like preventing comedian Shane Gillis and actress Sydney Sweeney from appearing in ads.

“House Republicans are the only thing standing between you and the nightmare of ‘Project 2026,’” NRCC spokesperson Maureen O’Toole said in a release, arguing that defeating Pou was the only way to prevent the “leaked” policies from being enacted.

There’s no direct disclaimer anywhere in the memo, or in the press release attacking Pou, acknowledging that the entire thing is a fabrication, though an “NRCC note” appended to the end of the memo reveals the GOP’s involvement.

The NRCC said that the note at the bottom, as well as the generally preposterous tone of the memo itself (its headline is “LEAKED MEMO”), should make it obvious to observers that the entire thing was meant as a joke.

“It’s clearly satire, but what’s unfortunately not satire is Nellie Pou’s radical record that continues to leave New Jerseyans behind,” O’Toole told the New Jersey Globe.

Pou’s campaign, for its part, accused Republicans of resorting to lies because they lack any real issues to campaign on.

“Nellie Pou is fighting every day to make life more affordable for New Jersey families,” Pou campaign manager Morghan Cyr said. “Desperate Washington Republicans are once again showing they have absolutely nothing real to offer the people of Bergen, Hudson, and Passaic counties except made up lies.” 

Pou, a former state senator elected to her first term last year, faces a tough 2026 fight for re-election in the 9th congressional district, which unexpectedly voted for Donald Trump in 2024. Two Republicans, 2024 GOP nominee Billy Prempeh and Clifton Councilwoman Rosie Pino, have launched campaigns against the congresswoman, and the NRCC has indicated that it intends to target her heavily.

During her first seven months in Congress, Pou has maintained a relatively liberal voting record and sided against Republicans on most key issues, giving her political opponents fodder for attacks. Her vote against the Laken Riley Act – she was the only Trump-district Democrat to vote no – has led the NRCC to blame her for practically every crime committed by undocumented immigrants ever since.

The New Jersey Globe could find no evidence, however, that Pou has ever taken a stance one way or the other on Shane Gillis or Sydney Sweeney.

The post National Republicans attack Nellie Pou over ‘leaked memo’ they wrote appeared first on New Jersey Globe.

A court-ordered do-over election for fire commissioner in Toms River is set for September 20, but with five weeks remaining, the two sides are waiting for Superior Court Judge Robert Brenner to decide whether the local fire company or the Ocean County Board of Elections will be responsible for counting the votes.

A state appellate court panel decided on July 1 that the February contest between Anthony Cirz and Michael Hopson needed to be run again after reversing Superior Court Judge Valter Must’s ruling to count two write-in votes cast for candidates whose names already appeared on the ballot.

Dawn Halliwell, the Fire District’s financial clerk, asked the Ocean County Board of Elections whether to count write-in votes for candidates who also appeared on the ballot. She was informed the Board of Election “would not count” those votes, but Halliwell then made a “unilateral decision” to count the votes anyway, saying the fire district “d[id]n’t have a policy and it’s our election.”

The new results — which were certified and posted after the fire district treasurer’s “attorney friend” said to publish the revised tally — showed Cirz as the winner by one vote.

Hopson challenged the results and Must determined the write-in votes for Cirz and another candidate who finished fourth should be counted, because the voter’s intention was clear.

In a 39-page decision, the appellate court criticized the administration of the election, saying the results should not depend on who is running it.

Cirz’s attorney, Scott Salmon, has challenged the role of the Board of Elections because its chairman, Ocean County GOP Chairman George Gilmore, is Hopson’s uncle.  Salmon wants Gilmore to recuse himself

But the attorney general’s office, while staying out of the conflict question, disagrees.

“Allowing the board to staff and oversee the election provides for the continuity of effort required to allow the Board to carry out its duties accurately and efficiently,” said Acting Attorney General Angela Cai.  “If the board is ultimately responsible for canvassing the vote and certifying the results, it should be permitted to staff and oversee the election itself rather than rely on the staff and policies of the fire district.”

The post Five weeks before rerun of Toms River fire commissioner race, judge still deciding who runs election appeared first on New Jersey Globe.

Two weeks after one New Jersey defendant filed a motion challenging acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s authority to prosecute him, a second defendant has followed suit – and he’s armed with some new, potentially compelling arguments that the first defendant lacked.

Cesar Pina, a Franklin Lakes real estate investor and influencer who goes by the alias “Flipping NJ,” was indicted on July 7 on money laundering and bribery charges in what Habba’s office called a “multi-million-dollar Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme.” But as Pina’s lawyers argued in a motion filed yesterday, Habba’s tenure as interim U.S. Attorney may have already expired by the time the indictment was signed, which they say renders the entire case invalid and warrants a dismissal of charges.

“On the date Ms. Habba signed Mr. Pina’s indictment as ‘United States Attorney,’ July 7, 2025, she was acting without legal authority,” Pina’s high-powered legal team – Gerald Krovatin, Abbe Lowell and Norman Eisen – wrote yesterday. “She was not a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney, not an Interim U.S. Attorney, not an Acting U.S. Attorney, not First Assistant, and not even a duly-authorized Special Attorney. Because she was acting under no legal authority in bringing this indictment, Ms. Habba’s actions are ultra vires and the indictment must be dismissed.”

The timing of the charges sets Pina’s case apart from that of Julien Giraud, the other defendant who is taking on Habba. Giraud had initially been charged by U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger during the Biden administration, and his case rests on whether it is unlawful for Habba to prosecute the case despite the unusual nature of her appointment.

The Giraud case has been transferred out of New Jersey, presumably because of the close connections New Jersey’s federal judges have to the dispute; the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reassigned it to Pennsylvania judge Matthew Brann, who will hear arguments from Giraud and the Justice Department on Friday. It remains to be seen whether the Third Circuit will do the same with the Pina case, which is currently before New Jersey District Court Judge Madeleine Cox Arleo.

As laid out by Pina’s lawyers in a detailed timeline, the dispute over New Jersey’s U.S. Attorney’s office began on March 3, when President Donald Trump chose a little-known lawyer named John Giordano as interim U.S. Attorney, a title that comes with a term limit of 120 days. Just three weeks later, however, Trump announced that Giordano would be shifted into an ambassadorship and that the new interim U.S. Attorney would be Habba, his own former personal lawyer and a conservative firebrand.

Just because a new person was in the role, however, did not necessarily mean that the 120-day limit had restarted. Pina’s lawyers are now arguing (citing, among other things, a 1986 memorandum from now-Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito) that the 120-day limit begins the day of a vacancy and cannot be reset, thus meaning that Habba’s tenure ended on July 1 – a week before she signed the indictment against Pina.

Even accepting the Trump administration’s contention that Habba’s appointment reset the 120-day clock, however, Pina’s lawyers say there are still a number of other defects with her appointment that render her authority illegitimate.

In late July, right as Habba’s term was set to expire, New Jersey’s District Court judges met and voted to appoint First Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Grace as her acting successor, which federal law allows them to do. Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, fired Grace from the Justice Department, accepted Habba’s resignation as interim U.S. Attorney, and appointed Habba as First Assistant on July 24, thus automatically elevating her to acting U.S. Attorney. (Grace has since filed an administrative appeal challenging her firing, per Bloomberg.)

One key unresolved question that Pina’s lawyers home in on: the exact date of the expiration of Habba’s tenure. The government argues that it did not expire until July 26, 120 days from her official appointment on March 28, thus making the July 22 vote of the federal judges moot since it occurred before a vacancy existed. But Trump’s March 24 social media post announcing Habba’s appointment said it would be “effective immediately,” which would mean Habba’s term ended on July 22, the same day as the judges’ vote.

Pina’s attorneys also argue that, because Habba’s nomination for a full term as U.S. Attorney had been submitted to the Senate, she was ineligible for appointment as acting U.S. Attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which specifically bars nominees from taking on the office they’ve been nominated for in an acting capacity. The same argument has been put forward in the Giraud case; the government contends that, because Habba’s nomination was withdrawn shortly before her appointment, federal law was not violated.

“The act of withdrawing a nomination … is not a magic pill that allows a failed nominee to evade subsection 3345(b)(1)(A),” Pina’s lawyers wrote. “The FVRA was enacted precisely to prevent a stalled nominee from serving as the acting head of that same office. To greenlight the loophole the Government proposes, the Court would need to fully ignore the history that gave rise to the statute’s enactment.”

Pina’s motion also puts forward a handful of new arguments that go unmentioned in the Giraud case. For one, it argues that when Habba resigned as interim U.S. Attorney, the authority of acting U.S. Attorney should have passed on to former acting U.S. Attorney Vikas Khanna, who held the post of First Assistant when the vacancy first arose in January. And it notes that Habba never actually served in a subordinate role despite holding the title of “First Assistant,” thus rendering the label functionally meaningless.

The ongoing battles over the U.S. Attorney’s office have caused chaos in the New Jersey court system, with cases grinding to a halt until Habba’s authority is either affirmed or revoked. And given the momentous nature of the debate, it’s possible the question will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court – meaning the situation may remain unsettled for quite some time.

The post Another N.J. defendant takes on Habba – this time, one who was indicted by Habba herself appeared first on New Jersey Globe.

Seeking to enter the live morning news and lifestyle space, Gannett will launch Connecting America, a two-hour weekday program aimed at bringing diverse perspectives together over Jersey diner-like conversations.  The show debuts Monday, August 18, from 7-9 AM on the USA TODAY free ad-supported streaming television channels and the show’s YouTube channel.

At the center of the launch is veteran producer and media executive Dianne Doctor, the program’s creator. Doctor, whose career has spanned leadership roles in television newsrooms across the country, most recently at Channel 9 in New Jersey, says the goal is to create a space for honest dialogue that cuts across the political spectrum.

“If America is the melting pot, then the diner is the flavorful stew,” Doctor said. “We’re proud to contribute this unique program filled with great talent, the voices of real people, and fact-driven, impactful, high-quality journalism to the USA TODAY Channel.”

One of the regular contributors is Jim McQueeny, an eyewitness to most of New Jersey’s political history since the 1960s as a Hudson Dispatch and Star-Ledger reporter before embarking on a career in public affairs; he was the longtime host of Power & Politics on News 12.  McQueeny will bring political context and analysis to the show’s coverage, drawing on decades of reporting, commentary, and political strategy work.

For Doctor, Connecting America is about more than delivering headlines — it’s about fostering respectful exchanges in a time of national division. For McQueeny, it’s an opportunity to translate complex political developments for a broad, mainstream audience.

The show will be filmed in a real neighborhood diner, emphasizing its “Americana” theme and accessibility for viewers who want news without the shouting matches.

Doctor has assembled an anchor team of Alisyn Camerota, Dave Briggs, and Jim Rosenfield — to lead the conversations.

The post Dianne Doctor launches new morning news streaming show appeared first on New Jersey Globe.