update - Federal judge blocks Trump reallocating $4 Billion in FEMA funding
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
The Trump administration escalated its battle Monday to cast as rogue partisans federal judges who have blocked President Donald Trump’s priorities, this time taking aim at James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her office had filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg over comments, reported recently in right-leaning news outlets, that Boasberg made at a meeting of judges in March with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in attendance.
“These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that,” Bondi wrote on X.
According to the complaint, which was obtained by POLITICO and signed by Bondi’s chief of staff Chad Mizelle, Boasberg “attempted to improperly influence” Roberts and two dozen other judges by suggesting the Trump administration might “disregard rulings of federal courts” and trigger “a constitutional crisis.”
Days after the alleged remarks, Boasberg, an Obama appointee, rejected the administration’s efforts to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to a notorious prison in El Salvador, finding many of the deportations abused due process. Despite the order, the administration disembarked most of the Venezuelans in El Salvador, a decision Boasberg had suggested flagrantly defied his order.
Notably, the Supreme Court later vacated Boasberg’s order, saying the Venezuelan men should have filed lawsuits in the Texas district where they had been held before their deportation.
Mizelle argued that Boasberg’s views expressed at the conference violated the “presumption of regularity” that courts typically afford to the Executive Branch. And the Bondi aide said that the administration has followed all court orders, though several lower courts have found that the administration defied their commands.
Boasberg’s alleged comments came on March 11 at a twice-yearly meeting of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., a policymaking body for the federal judiciary. Roberts presides over the closed-door conference, which has 27 members and includes the chief judges of each judicial circuit and a district judge from that circuit.
Boasberg’s remarks at the conference came after weeks of Trump allies inside and outside the administration suggesting judges who rule against the president should be impeached and disfavored court orders should be ignored. Judges at every level — including justices of the Supreme Court — have raised the specter of defiance by the administration and urged officials to respect court orders regardless of which court or judge issues them.
Jeffrey Sutton, the chief judge of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals who briefed journalists after the conference that day, said several lawmakers were in attendance, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), as well as Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). It is unclear whether the lawmakers heard Boasberg’s remarks.
A spokesperson for Boasberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mizelle’s complaint falls to Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, who oversees judicial disciplinary matters for judges in that circuit.
Federal judges are ordinarily barred from making out-of-court public comments about pending or impending matters. It’s unclear whether Boasberg’s remarks at the judges’ meeting qualify and whether he was speaking about any case he knew to be pending or imminent. The complaint also makes more general claims that his statements undermined “public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.”
Mizelle also filed a complaint earlier this year against Washington-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes for her sharp-elbowed comments about the Justice Department’s arguments in a lawsuit seeking to block Trump’s transgender military ban.
In March, the Justice Department asked the D.C. Circuit to remove Boasberg from the deportation case and reassign it to another judge, an extraordinary step. The appeals court never acted on that request but has paused his orders related to potential contempt proceedings. After Boasberg’s March ruling, Trump called for the judge’s impeachment, labeling him a “troublemaker and agitator.”
The new complaint again asks for Boasberg’s removal from the deportation case and for him to be reprimanded publicly. It also raises the prospect of his fellow judges calling for his impeachment over the remarks.
The administration has recently escalated its fight with the judiciary in two other arenas. The Justice Department sued the entire federal bench in Maryland over a policy granting an automatic 48-hour hold on deportation cases. And the administration publicly attacked judges in New Jersey for appointing a veteran federal prosecutor as the state’s U.S. attorney — an effort to push aside Trump’s pick for the post, his former personal attorney Alina Habba.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her office had filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg over comments, reported recently in right-leaning news outlets, that Boasberg made at a meeting of judges in March with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in attendance.
“These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that,” Bondi wrote on X.
According to the complaint, which was obtained by POLITICO and signed by Bondi’s chief of staff Chad Mizelle, Boasberg “attempted to improperly influence” Roberts and two dozen other judges by suggesting the Trump administration might “disregard rulings of federal courts” and trigger “a constitutional crisis.”
Days after the alleged remarks, Boasberg, an Obama appointee, rejected the administration’s efforts to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to a notorious prison in El Salvador, finding many of the deportations abused due process. Despite the order, the administration disembarked most of the Venezuelans in El Salvador, a decision Boasberg had suggested flagrantly defied his order.
Notably, the Supreme Court later vacated Boasberg’s order, saying the Venezuelan men should have filed lawsuits in the Texas district where they had been held before their deportation.
Mizelle argued that Boasberg’s views expressed at the conference violated the “presumption of regularity” that courts typically afford to the Executive Branch. And the Bondi aide said that the administration has followed all court orders, though several lower courts have found that the administration defied their commands.
Boasberg’s alleged comments came on March 11 at a twice-yearly meeting of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., a policymaking body for the federal judiciary. Roberts presides over the closed-door conference, which has 27 members and includes the chief judges of each judicial circuit and a district judge from that circuit.
Boasberg’s remarks at the conference came after weeks of Trump allies inside and outside the administration suggesting judges who rule against the president should be impeached and disfavored court orders should be ignored. Judges at every level — including justices of the Supreme Court — have raised the specter of defiance by the administration and urged officials to respect court orders regardless of which court or judge issues them.
Jeffrey Sutton, the chief judge of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals who briefed journalists after the conference that day, said several lawmakers were in attendance, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), as well as Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). It is unclear whether the lawmakers heard Boasberg’s remarks.
A spokesperson for Boasberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mizelle’s complaint falls to Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, who oversees judicial disciplinary matters for judges in that circuit.
Federal judges are ordinarily barred from making out-of-court public comments about pending or impending matters. It’s unclear whether Boasberg’s remarks at the judges’ meeting qualify and whether he was speaking about any case he knew to be pending or imminent. The complaint also makes more general claims that his statements undermined “public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.”
Mizelle also filed a complaint earlier this year against Washington-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes for her sharp-elbowed comments about the Justice Department’s arguments in a lawsuit seeking to block Trump’s transgender military ban.
In March, the Justice Department asked the D.C. Circuit to remove Boasberg from the deportation case and reassign it to another judge, an extraordinary step. The appeals court never acted on that request but has paused his orders related to potential contempt proceedings. After Boasberg’s March ruling, Trump called for the judge’s impeachment, labeling him a “troublemaker and agitator.”
The new complaint again asks for Boasberg’s removal from the deportation case and for him to be reprimanded publicly. It also raises the prospect of his fellow judges calling for his impeachment over the remarks.
The administration has recently escalated its fight with the judiciary in two other arenas. The Justice Department sued the entire federal bench in Maryland over a policy granting an automatic 48-hour hold on deportation cases. And the administration publicly attacked judges in New Jersey for appointing a veteran federal prosecutor as the state’s U.S. attorney — an effort to push aside Trump’s pick for the post, his former personal attorney Alina Habba.
The clash between the Trump administration and the courts over who is leading the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey is already spilling into criminal cases.
A defense attorney is trying to get charges against his client thrown out by arguing the Trump administration illegally maneuvered to keep Alina Habba as the state’s top federal prosecutor, despite the expiration of her 120-day tenure. The defense filing, made on Sunday, comes after days of confusion over who is leading the office because of complex and contested rules over filling vacancies.
In the motion, on behalf of a defendant in a drug and gun-related case, attorney Thomas Mirigliano said a workaround Trump officials found to keep Habba was “irregular” and unconstitutional.
In a nine-page filing, Mirigliano said his client is “facing an imminent criminal trial proceeding under questionable legal authority” and asked for the charges to be thrown out or that Habba and her assistants be barred from exercising further prosecutorial powers in the case.
The problems for the U.S. Attorney’s Office could grow if other defense attorneys open a flood gate of similar motions. Even if Habba eventually prevailed against legal challenges to her authority as acting U.S. Attorney, there could be months of uncertainty over whether the office’s criminal cases — some 1,500 a year — could be thrown out or otherwise undermined.
Mirigliano argued that Desiree Leigh Grace — a career prosecutor whom New Jersey district court judges picked last week to replace Habba — is the rightful interim U.S. attorney.
Grace, a registered Republican, said last week she planned to take the job even after Attorney General Pam Bondi fired her. Then, on Thursday, the Trump administration revealed a multi-step maneuver to keep Habba on the job.
Mirigliano said the Trump administration’s decision to workaround Grace’s appointment represents an “unconstitutional executive usurpation of judicial authority.”
“I got the idea over the weekend because my trial was imminent and I thought it was an important issue that needed to be litigated,” he said in an interview.
Mirigliano told POLITICO that a previously scheduled hearing on Monday was cut short because of the motion, which is now being handed off to another judge. Mirigliano originally filed the motion with U.S. District Judge Edward Kiel, the Biden appointee overseeing the criminal case, but on Monday the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals transferred the case to Chief Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in an order that declared “it is in the public interest to do so.”
Brann, based in Williamsport, is an Obama appointee who in 2020 eviscerated President Donald Trump’s attempt to throw out millions of votes in the Keystone State, dismissing his campaign’s lawsuit with a withering opinion that described a dearth of proof to justify the drastic demand.
Presumably, Kiel was among the judges who voted on whether to appoint Grace to replace Habba.
Grace’s departure is causing other problems for the office. She was the counsel of record in several dozen active criminal and civil cases, according to federal court records.
In the past few days, prosecutors asked to delay at least one case — involving a triple homicide — because Grace was the lead prosecutor, according to a Monday filing by a defense attorney.
Prosecutors once thought about making it a death penalty case. Now a defense attorney is asking her clients — who are detained pending trial — to be released until the government is ready.
The defense attorney who filed the motion, Brooke Barnett, called the delay request a problem of the Department of Justice’s own making and suggested top department officials should come handle the case themselves.
“I would invite Alina Habba and Pam Bondi, if they wish, so they can try their case,” Barnett said in an interview. “It’s their doing, it’s their political doing.”
Judges have not yet commented on the conflict between Grace and Habba. Grace has only publicly commented on LinkedIn and has not said anything about whether she would challenge Habba’s control of the office.
A spokesperson for Habba declined to comment on the recent legal filing disputing her authority, but last week, Habba said the judges “preempted and struck out” when they tried to replace her.
There’s little precedent for a dispute over the rightful U.S. attorney. However, a similar fight erupted in the 1990s — and the courts ruled that criminal cases could advance, even amid the uncertainty.
At the time, Puerto Rico’s U.S. attorney Guillermo Gil — appointed by judges to an indefinite term that stretched more than six years — faced increasing challenges from defendants who said his appointment was unconstitutional.
Despite multiple challenges, only one district judge agreed that Gil had been unlawfully serving in the position. But the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, saying that despite the cloud over the U.S. attorney’s position, the office could continue to function through the work of assistant U.S. attorneys. That’s because those prosecutors derive their authority straight from the attorney general, the court found.
“AUSAs are themselves representatives of the government,” the three-judge panel ruled. “Because they are appointed directly by the Attorney General … their ability to act does not hinge on the authority of the local United States Attorney.”
A defense attorney is trying to get charges against his client thrown out by arguing the Trump administration illegally maneuvered to keep Alina Habba as the state’s top federal prosecutor, despite the expiration of her 120-day tenure. The defense filing, made on Sunday, comes after days of confusion over who is leading the office because of complex and contested rules over filling vacancies.
In the motion, on behalf of a defendant in a drug and gun-related case, attorney Thomas Mirigliano said a workaround Trump officials found to keep Habba was “irregular” and unconstitutional.
In a nine-page filing, Mirigliano said his client is “facing an imminent criminal trial proceeding under questionable legal authority” and asked for the charges to be thrown out or that Habba and her assistants be barred from exercising further prosecutorial powers in the case.
The problems for the U.S. Attorney’s Office could grow if other defense attorneys open a flood gate of similar motions. Even if Habba eventually prevailed against legal challenges to her authority as acting U.S. Attorney, there could be months of uncertainty over whether the office’s criminal cases — some 1,500 a year — could be thrown out or otherwise undermined.
Mirigliano argued that Desiree Leigh Grace — a career prosecutor whom New Jersey district court judges picked last week to replace Habba — is the rightful interim U.S. attorney.
Grace, a registered Republican, said last week she planned to take the job even after Attorney General Pam Bondi fired her. Then, on Thursday, the Trump administration revealed a multi-step maneuver to keep Habba on the job.
Mirigliano said the Trump administration’s decision to workaround Grace’s appointment represents an “unconstitutional executive usurpation of judicial authority.”
“I got the idea over the weekend because my trial was imminent and I thought it was an important issue that needed to be litigated,” he said in an interview.
Mirigliano told POLITICO that a previously scheduled hearing on Monday was cut short because of the motion, which is now being handed off to another judge. Mirigliano originally filed the motion with U.S. District Judge Edward Kiel, the Biden appointee overseeing the criminal case, but on Monday the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals transferred the case to Chief Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in an order that declared “it is in the public interest to do so.”
Brann, based in Williamsport, is an Obama appointee who in 2020 eviscerated President Donald Trump’s attempt to throw out millions of votes in the Keystone State, dismissing his campaign’s lawsuit with a withering opinion that described a dearth of proof to justify the drastic demand.
Presumably, Kiel was among the judges who voted on whether to appoint Grace to replace Habba.
Grace’s departure is causing other problems for the office. She was the counsel of record in several dozen active criminal and civil cases, according to federal court records.
In the past few days, prosecutors asked to delay at least one case — involving a triple homicide — because Grace was the lead prosecutor, according to a Monday filing by a defense attorney.
Prosecutors once thought about making it a death penalty case. Now a defense attorney is asking her clients — who are detained pending trial — to be released until the government is ready.
The defense attorney who filed the motion, Brooke Barnett, called the delay request a problem of the Department of Justice’s own making and suggested top department officials should come handle the case themselves.
“I would invite Alina Habba and Pam Bondi, if they wish, so they can try their case,” Barnett said in an interview. “It’s their doing, it’s their political doing.”
Judges have not yet commented on the conflict between Grace and Habba. Grace has only publicly commented on LinkedIn and has not said anything about whether she would challenge Habba’s control of the office.
A spokesperson for Habba declined to comment on the recent legal filing disputing her authority, but last week, Habba said the judges “preempted and struck out” when they tried to replace her.
There’s little precedent for a dispute over the rightful U.S. attorney. However, a similar fight erupted in the 1990s — and the courts ruled that criminal cases could advance, even amid the uncertainty.
At the time, Puerto Rico’s U.S. attorney Guillermo Gil — appointed by judges to an indefinite term that stretched more than six years — faced increasing challenges from defendants who said his appointment was unconstitutional.
Despite multiple challenges, only one district judge agreed that Gil had been unlawfully serving in the position. But the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, saying that despite the cloud over the U.S. attorney’s position, the office could continue to function through the work of assistant U.S. attorneys. That’s because those prosecutors derive their authority straight from the attorney general, the court found.
“AUSAs are themselves representatives of the government,” the three-judge panel ruled. “Because they are appointed directly by the Attorney General … their ability to act does not hinge on the authority of the local United States Attorney.”
President Donald Trump's top Justice Department official, Emil Bove, was nominated for a judgeship on the Court of Appeals, which prompted a whistleblower to come forward about his experience hearing Bove urge the administration to ignore the rulings of a court judge.
And on Monday, a third whistleblower came forward, following a second who came forward last week. The first was Erez Reuveni, who came forward ahead of the Bove confirmation hearing with both an affidavit and several pages of text messages and emails to verify his claims.
The Washington Post reported that the third person contradicts Bove's claims under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee about a DOJ prosecution.
"The Washington Post reviewed the evidence and agreed to withhold details to protect the identity of the whistleblower, whose lawyers spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the whistleblower’s fear of retribution," said the report.
Two other whistleblowers confirmed accounts that Bove said to a group in a March meeting to ignore the court orders or they "would hamper Trump's efforts to deport millions of undocumented immigrants."
The new whistleblower has a different account of Bove’s behavior than the first two, the report stated.
Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) named a fake rule that made everything Bove has said at the DOJ fall under some kind of privilege. Democrats hammered Grassley on it, but it went ignored.
My understanding is that Congress has never accepted the constitutional validity of either such privilege," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) at the time.
He called it a "stunning breach" of duty.
When it came time to vote on the committee's nomination, Democrats were so furious that they walked out, refusing to vote.
Read the full report here.
Embattled Trump nomination kneecapped again as third DOJ whistleblower comes forward
And on Monday, a third whistleblower came forward, following a second who came forward last week. The first was Erez Reuveni, who came forward ahead of the Bove confirmation hearing with both an affidavit and several pages of text messages and emails to verify his claims.
The Washington Post reported that the third person contradicts Bove's claims under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee about a DOJ prosecution.
"The Washington Post reviewed the evidence and agreed to withhold details to protect the identity of the whistleblower, whose lawyers spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the whistleblower’s fear of retribution," said the report.
Two other whistleblowers confirmed accounts that Bove said to a group in a March meeting to ignore the court orders or they "would hamper Trump's efforts to deport millions of undocumented immigrants."
The new whistleblower has a different account of Bove’s behavior than the first two, the report stated.
Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) named a fake rule that made everything Bove has said at the DOJ fall under some kind of privilege. Democrats hammered Grassley on it, but it went ignored.
My understanding is that Congress has never accepted the constitutional validity of either such privilege," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) at the time.
He called it a "stunning breach" of duty.
When it came time to vote on the committee's nomination, Democrats were so furious that they walked out, refusing to vote.
Read the full report here.
Embattled Trump nomination kneecapped again as third DOJ whistleblower comes forward
So - according to Trump and Bondi - the NJ judges couldn't vote to replace Habba with Leigh Grace because the judges could only replace Habba when Habba's tenure expired on 25 July.
But Habba's tenure didn't expire on 25 July because Habba resigned on 24 July and was immediately re appointed by Bondi to be NJ Attorney on the same day, 24 July......
Anyone else think this is complete and asinine bullshit???
Senate lawmakers on Tuesday night confirmed a controversial nominee of President Donald Trump to a lifetime judge position.
Emil Bove was nominated for a federal judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He previously acted as U.S. deputy attorney general and was a central figure in the legal defense of high-profile Trump criminal trials, including over his handling of classified documents, election obstruction, and the New York hush-money case.
Bove's nomination faced fierce opposition, with more than 75 former federal and state judges and more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys publicly calling for lawmakers to block his nomination. Additionally, three whistleblowers have come forward with at least two publicly accusing Bove of encouraging officials to ignore court orders and lying about it.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
The Senate's final vote required a simple majority to pass Bove. Sahil Kapur of NBC News reported that Bove was confirmed by a narrow 50-49 vote.
He was confirmed with only Republican votes, noted Kapur, with all Democrats voting no. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) joined Democrats in opposing Bove.
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) was not present for the vote, Kapur noted.
Controversial Trump loyalist confirmed to lifetime judge seat by one vote
Emil Bove was nominated for a federal judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He previously acted as U.S. deputy attorney general and was a central figure in the legal defense of high-profile Trump criminal trials, including over his handling of classified documents, election obstruction, and the New York hush-money case.
Bove's nomination faced fierce opposition, with more than 75 former federal and state judges and more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys publicly calling for lawmakers to block his nomination. Additionally, three whistleblowers have come forward with at least two publicly accusing Bove of encouraging officials to ignore court orders and lying about it.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
The Senate's final vote required a simple majority to pass Bove. Sahil Kapur of NBC News reported that Bove was confirmed by a narrow 50-49 vote.
He was confirmed with only Republican votes, noted Kapur, with all Democrats voting no. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) joined Democrats in opposing Bove.
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) was not present for the vote, Kapur noted.
Controversial Trump loyalist confirmed to lifetime judge seat by one vote
President Donald Trump is finding out the hard way what happens when a chief executive destroys the government's credibility.
The president installed loyalists at the top of his cabinet-level agencies, especially at the Department of Justice, where his former impeachment lawyer Pam Bondi serves as attorney general and his former criminal defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove serve as her deputies, and former federal prosecutor Daniel Richman published a column in the New York Times saying their close ties to Trump has created major problems for himself.
"Numerous federal judges have raised concerns, to put it mildly, about the Trump administration’s readiness to put political expediency and presidential will above professionalism and adherence to the rule of law," Richman wrote. "If a Trump Justice Department lawyer appears before a court and either doesn’t know an answer because the political bosses have withheld it, or, worse, is not fully candid or even lies, she becomes just another lawyer, and a sleazy one at that. The government’s case suffers accordingly, as it should."
That credibility crisis has settled over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, which Bondi and Kash Patel and Dan Bongino – the MAGA mouthpieces who now lead the FBI – had promoted before abruptly telling the public to move along. Richman said the president created the problem by installing those officials in the first place.
"No one is fooled by the lack of any official’s name on the written statement," Richman said. "It comes from Ms. Bondi’s Justice Department and Mr. Patel’s F.B.I. — organizations whose lawyers and agents have seen colleagues pushed out for the mere suspicion of insufficient loyalty. How can these institutions show that they are not simply protecting the president?"
Bondi sent Blanche into a Florida prison to speak to Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who's appealing her 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking children, and Trump has floated the possibility of a pardon for his former friend in exchange for identifying others involved in the sex crimes – in which many suspect the president himself may be implicated.
"Say she is willing to speak about a wide range of new matters, maybe involving the president," Richman said. "What confidence should we have that Trump Justice Department officials will push her hard to be truthful and candid? Or that they will report back everything she said?"
"The answer to the last set of questions is probably 'none,'" Richman added.
Blanche could enhance his credibility by including career Justice Department lawyers or FBI agents in his Maxwell interviews, but the public still might not trust testimony from a convicted criminal who has a strong motivation to lie to the president's former criminal defense lawyer about matters that could damage him politically.
"The Trump Justice Department needs someone with the credibility to tell the general public, 'yes, there is some material that for legal reasons we cannot share, but really there’s nothing to see here,'" Richman wrote. "There will always be conspiracy theorists who would never believe the government. Many other Americans expect and want the truth from this Justice Department."
"The unavoidable problem for the Trump administration is how it has poisoned the well it now wants to draw from," he added.
'Poisoned the well': Trump hurt by 'unavoidable problem' he created at DOJ
The president installed loyalists at the top of his cabinet-level agencies, especially at the Department of Justice, where his former impeachment lawyer Pam Bondi serves as attorney general and his former criminal defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove serve as her deputies, and former federal prosecutor Daniel Richman published a column in the New York Times saying their close ties to Trump has created major problems for himself.
"Numerous federal judges have raised concerns, to put it mildly, about the Trump administration’s readiness to put political expediency and presidential will above professionalism and adherence to the rule of law," Richman wrote. "If a Trump Justice Department lawyer appears before a court and either doesn’t know an answer because the political bosses have withheld it, or, worse, is not fully candid or even lies, she becomes just another lawyer, and a sleazy one at that. The government’s case suffers accordingly, as it should."
That credibility crisis has settled over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, which Bondi and Kash Patel and Dan Bongino – the MAGA mouthpieces who now lead the FBI – had promoted before abruptly telling the public to move along. Richman said the president created the problem by installing those officials in the first place.
"No one is fooled by the lack of any official’s name on the written statement," Richman said. "It comes from Ms. Bondi’s Justice Department and Mr. Patel’s F.B.I. — organizations whose lawyers and agents have seen colleagues pushed out for the mere suspicion of insufficient loyalty. How can these institutions show that they are not simply protecting the president?"
Bondi sent Blanche into a Florida prison to speak to Epstein's accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who's appealing her 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking children, and Trump has floated the possibility of a pardon for his former friend in exchange for identifying others involved in the sex crimes – in which many suspect the president himself may be implicated.
"Say she is willing to speak about a wide range of new matters, maybe involving the president," Richman said. "What confidence should we have that Trump Justice Department officials will push her hard to be truthful and candid? Or that they will report back everything she said?"
"The answer to the last set of questions is probably 'none,'" Richman added.
Blanche could enhance his credibility by including career Justice Department lawyers or FBI agents in his Maxwell interviews, but the public still might not trust testimony from a convicted criminal who has a strong motivation to lie to the president's former criminal defense lawyer about matters that could damage him politically.
"The Trump Justice Department needs someone with the credibility to tell the general public, 'yes, there is some material that for legal reasons we cannot share, but really there’s nothing to see here,'" Richman wrote. "There will always be conspiracy theorists who would never believe the government. Many other Americans expect and want the truth from this Justice Department."
"The unavoidable problem for the Trump administration is how it has poisoned the well it now wants to draw from," he added.
'Poisoned the well': Trump hurt by 'unavoidable problem' he created at DOJ
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is pressing for a deal with Harvard University that would require the Ivy League school to pay far more than the $200 million fine agreed to by Columbia University to resolve multiple federal investigations, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Harvard would be expected to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as part of any settlement to end investigations into antisemitism at its campus, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Harvard leaders have been negotiating with the White House even as they battle in court to regain access to billions in federal research funding terminated by the Trump administration.
The White House’s desire to get Harvard to pay far more than Columbia was first reported by The New York Times, which said the school has signaled a willingness to pay as much as $500 million.
Harvard did not immediately comment.
The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as a staple for future agreements. Last week, Columbia leaders agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into alleged violations of federal antidiscrimination laws and restore more than $400 million in research grants.
Columbia had been in talks for months after the Trump administration accused the university of allowing the harassment of Jewish students and employees amid a wave of campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Harvard faces similar accusations but, unlike Columbia, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, school challenged the administration’s funding cuts and subsequent sanctions in court.
Last week, President Donald Trump said Harvard “wants to settle” but he said Columbia “handled it better.”
The Trump administration’s emphasis on financial penalties adds a new dimension for colleges facing federal scrutiny. In the past, civil rights investigations by the Education Department almost always ended with voluntary agreements and rarely included fines.
Even when the government has levied fines, they’ve been a small fraction of the scale Trump is seeking. Last year, the Education Department fined Liberty University $14 million after finding the Christian school failed to disclose crimes on its campus. It was the most the government had ever fined a university under the Clery Act, following a $4.5 million fine dealt to Michigan State University in 2019 for its handling of sexual assault complaints against disgraced sports doctor Larry Nassar.
The University of Pennsylvania agreed this month to modify school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, but that school’s deal with the Trump administration included no fine.
The Trump administration has opened investigations at dozens of universities over allegations of antisemitism or racial discrimination in the form of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Several face funding freezes akin to those at Harvard, including more than $1 billion at Cornell University and $790 million at Northwestern University.
Last week, Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the Columbia deal a “roadmap” for other colleges, saying it would “ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
Trump administration wants Harvard to pay far more than Columbia as part of settlement
Harvard would be expected to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as part of any settlement to end investigations into antisemitism at its campus, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Harvard leaders have been negotiating with the White House even as they battle in court to regain access to billions in federal research funding terminated by the Trump administration.
The White House’s desire to get Harvard to pay far more than Columbia was first reported by The New York Times, which said the school has signaled a willingness to pay as much as $500 million.
Harvard did not immediately comment.
The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as a staple for future agreements. Last week, Columbia leaders agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into alleged violations of federal antidiscrimination laws and restore more than $400 million in research grants.
Columbia had been in talks for months after the Trump administration accused the university of allowing the harassment of Jewish students and employees amid a wave of campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Harvard faces similar accusations but, unlike Columbia, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, school challenged the administration’s funding cuts and subsequent sanctions in court.
Last week, President Donald Trump said Harvard “wants to settle” but he said Columbia “handled it better.”
The Trump administration’s emphasis on financial penalties adds a new dimension for colleges facing federal scrutiny. In the past, civil rights investigations by the Education Department almost always ended with voluntary agreements and rarely included fines.
Even when the government has levied fines, they’ve been a small fraction of the scale Trump is seeking. Last year, the Education Department fined Liberty University $14 million after finding the Christian school failed to disclose crimes on its campus. It was the most the government had ever fined a university under the Clery Act, following a $4.5 million fine dealt to Michigan State University in 2019 for its handling of sexual assault complaints against disgraced sports doctor Larry Nassar.
The University of Pennsylvania agreed this month to modify school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, but that school’s deal with the Trump administration included no fine.
The Trump administration has opened investigations at dozens of universities over allegations of antisemitism or racial discrimination in the form of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Several face funding freezes akin to those at Harvard, including more than $1 billion at Cornell University and $790 million at Northwestern University.
Last week, Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the Columbia deal a “roadmap” for other colleges, saying it would “ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”
Trump administration wants Harvard to pay far more than Columbia as part of settlement
White House, in Washington, U.S. February 3, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo© provided by AlterNet
NPR reports President Donald Trump has gotten personal in his defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul owner Rupert Murdoch.
Trump is suing the paper after claiming on social media that he personally told Murdoch that a birthday card he allegedly sent convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was a hoax, despite Trump’s emblematic signature comprising the pubic hair of the female image on the card.
The Wall Street Journal reported the news of the Epstein birthday card regardless. Now Trump is asking a Miami federal judge to compel the aging Murdoch, essentially, to take the stand while he still has life left in him.
“It bears noting that Murdoch was born on March 11, 1931 — he is 94 years old,” the filing claims, adding that “Murdoch has suffered, or is continuing to suffer, from multiple health issues.”
The 11-page filing outlines several public demonstrations of Murdoch’s continuing health issues — including a 2023 public collapse in London — and it argues, “There is good cause to expedite Murdoch’s deposition.”
Trump wants to compel Murdoch to answer questions under oath within 15 days of the order, but NPR reports critics are dismissing the filing.
“The way it's being framed is almost sarcastic," lawyer Joseph Azam told NPR. “It's classic Trump. He is using lawfare, to use his own term, to silence people. … The problem is he's going after people who are equally equipped — and in some ways, I would say, better equipped — to navigate this stuff."
Azam added that the filing feels like "a gratuitous attempt to poke the bear."
Murdoch’s paper appears indifferent to Trump’s legal threat. Days after Trump launched his suit, the Journal followed up with another Epstein-related article claiming the Justice Department alerted Trump in May that his name appears in the Epstein files.
NPR reports Trump’s U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi did not confirm to reporters that she told him his name had appeared.
'Poke the bear': Legal experts warn Trump’s 'sarcastic' Murdoch filing will backfire
NPR reports President Donald Trump has gotten personal in his defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul owner Rupert Murdoch.
Trump is suing the paper after claiming on social media that he personally told Murdoch that a birthday card he allegedly sent convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein was a hoax, despite Trump’s emblematic signature comprising the pubic hair of the female image on the card.
The Wall Street Journal reported the news of the Epstein birthday card regardless. Now Trump is asking a Miami federal judge to compel the aging Murdoch, essentially, to take the stand while he still has life left in him.
“It bears noting that Murdoch was born on March 11, 1931 — he is 94 years old,” the filing claims, adding that “Murdoch has suffered, or is continuing to suffer, from multiple health issues.”
The 11-page filing outlines several public demonstrations of Murdoch’s continuing health issues — including a 2023 public collapse in London — and it argues, “There is good cause to expedite Murdoch’s deposition.”
Trump wants to compel Murdoch to answer questions under oath within 15 days of the order, but NPR reports critics are dismissing the filing.
“The way it's being framed is almost sarcastic," lawyer Joseph Azam told NPR. “It's classic Trump. He is using lawfare, to use his own term, to silence people. … The problem is he's going after people who are equally equipped — and in some ways, I would say, better equipped — to navigate this stuff."
Azam added that the filing feels like "a gratuitous attempt to poke the bear."
Murdoch’s paper appears indifferent to Trump’s legal threat. Days after Trump launched his suit, the Journal followed up with another Epstein-related article claiming the Justice Department alerted Trump in May that his name appears in the Epstein files.
NPR reports Trump’s U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi did not confirm to reporters that she told him his name had appeared.
'Poke the bear': Legal experts warn Trump’s 'sarcastic' Murdoch filing will backfire
Talk about canceling, lawfare and everything else Trumputin falsely claimed was being done against him is now showing a master class on how fascism is done. The felon is showing he is truly the KING OF FELONS AND CONMEN, while his cult, like sheep, all fall in line. LMAO
Back in late February — a month after Donald Trump returned to the White House — Forrester.com posted an article headlined, "X-tortion: How Advertisers Are Losing Control of Media Choice." Forrester, in the piece, addressed advertisers' right to decide for themselves who they will and won't advertise with.
Trump is now half a year into his second presidency. Journalist Julia Angwin, in an op-ed published by the New York Times on July 30, warns that the Trump Administration "is trying to stop advertisers and brands from boycotting right-leaning businesses."
"The latest maneuver comes from the Federal Trade Commission," Angwin explains. "Last month, it announced that it would approve the merger of two of the biggest ad agencies in the world only if the parties agree to an unusual condition: The merged company cannot refuse to place ads on websites for political reasons. The move was a sharp break from its traditional practice."
Angwin adds, "The FTC is usually focused on such concerns as consumer protection and monopoly power; now, it's trying to dictate where businesses advertise their products. While the move would theoretically affect platforms of any political persuasion, there’s little doubt that it is a thinly veiled attempt to prop up X."
The journalist points out that X, formerly Twitter, "suffered an advertiser exodus after" billionaire Tesla/SpaceX leader Elon Musk acquired the platform and "began using it to promote right-wing talking points, including antisemitism and conspiracy theories."
"In 2023," Angwin notes, "dozens of advertisers suspended their spending after two media watchdog groups, the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Media Matters, revealed how X was profiting from accounts that spread hate and misinformation and that major brands’ ads were appearing near pro-Nazi content. X responded by suing both the watchdog groups, as well as an advertising trade group and several leading advertisers it accused of illegally boycotting its business."
Angwin continues, "Then, in May, the FTC began investigating roughly a dozen advertising and advocacy groups, including Media Matters, to determine if they were engaged in a conspiracy or collusion by encouraging advertisers to boycott X and other websites. Media Matters has since sued the FTC, but in the meantime, the organization has dialed back its criticism and is considering closing in the face of steep legal fees. The FTC's recent efforts essentially bolster X’s legally dubious argument that advertisers don't have the right to freedom of expression…. Faced with the threat of having to prove they are not boycotting outlets for political reasons, advertisers may find that their best defense is to place ads in right-wing publications. "
'Legally dubious': Inside Trump’s 'thinly veiled' push to force advertisers on right-wing sites
Trump is now half a year into his second presidency. Journalist Julia Angwin, in an op-ed published by the New York Times on July 30, warns that the Trump Administration "is trying to stop advertisers and brands from boycotting right-leaning businesses."
"The latest maneuver comes from the Federal Trade Commission," Angwin explains. "Last month, it announced that it would approve the merger of two of the biggest ad agencies in the world only if the parties agree to an unusual condition: The merged company cannot refuse to place ads on websites for political reasons. The move was a sharp break from its traditional practice."
Angwin adds, "The FTC is usually focused on such concerns as consumer protection and monopoly power; now, it's trying to dictate where businesses advertise their products. While the move would theoretically affect platforms of any political persuasion, there’s little doubt that it is a thinly veiled attempt to prop up X."
The journalist points out that X, formerly Twitter, "suffered an advertiser exodus after" billionaire Tesla/SpaceX leader Elon Musk acquired the platform and "began using it to promote right-wing talking points, including antisemitism and conspiracy theories."
"In 2023," Angwin notes, "dozens of advertisers suspended their spending after two media watchdog groups, the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Media Matters, revealed how X was profiting from accounts that spread hate and misinformation and that major brands’ ads were appearing near pro-Nazi content. X responded by suing both the watchdog groups, as well as an advertising trade group and several leading advertisers it accused of illegally boycotting its business."
Angwin continues, "Then, in May, the FTC began investigating roughly a dozen advertising and advocacy groups, including Media Matters, to determine if they were engaged in a conspiracy or collusion by encouraging advertisers to boycott X and other websites. Media Matters has since sued the FTC, but in the meantime, the organization has dialed back its criticism and is considering closing in the face of steep legal fees. The FTC's recent efforts essentially bolster X’s legally dubious argument that advertisers don't have the right to freedom of expression…. Faced with the threat of having to prove they are not boycotting outlets for political reasons, advertisers may find that their best defense is to place ads in right-wing publications. "
'Legally dubious': Inside Trump’s 'thinly veiled' push to force advertisers on right-wing sites
The United States imposed sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes on Wednesday, accusing him of authorizing arbitrary pre-trial detentions and suppressing freedom of expression.
Moraes oversees the criminal case against former President Jair Bolsonaro, who has been charged with plotting a coup. U.S. President Donald Trump has tied new tariffs on Brazil to what he called a "witch hunt" against his right-wing ally.
The announcement by the U.S. Treasury Department follows Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement in June saying that Washington was considering sanctioning the judge.
Moraes was sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. to impose economic penalties against foreigners it considers to have a record of corruption or human rights abuses.
"Moraes has investigated, prosecuted, and suppressed those who have engaged in speech that is protected under the U.S. Constitution, repeatedly subjecting victims to long preventive detentions without bringing charges," the Treasury Department said in a statement.
Moraes recently ordered Bolsonaro to wear an ankle bracelet and stop using social media over allegations he courted the interference from Trump.
US imposes sanctions on Brazilian high court judge
Moraes oversees the criminal case against former President Jair Bolsonaro, who has been charged with plotting a coup. U.S. President Donald Trump has tied new tariffs on Brazil to what he called a "witch hunt" against his right-wing ally.
The announcement by the U.S. Treasury Department follows Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement in June saying that Washington was considering sanctioning the judge.
Moraes was sanctioned under the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. to impose economic penalties against foreigners it considers to have a record of corruption or human rights abuses.
"Moraes has investigated, prosecuted, and suppressed those who have engaged in speech that is protected under the U.S. Constitution, repeatedly subjecting victims to long preventive detentions without bringing charges," the Treasury Department said in a statement.
Moraes recently ordered Bolsonaro to wear an ankle bracelet and stop using social media over allegations he courted the interference from Trump.
US imposes sanctions on Brazilian high court judge
