By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite redactions, a 21-page slideshow within the FBI files details allegations from a woman who claims she was assaulted by Trump in the mid-1980s when she was a minor. The woman stated Epstein introduced her to Trump, who then allegedly forced her to perform oral sex, after which Trump punched and kicked her out. This account aligns with details provided by “Jane Doe 4” in a separate victim lawsuit, who reported similar abuse, including being slapped and raped by a prominent man associated with Epstein. The inclusion of these FBI interview records in discovery materials for Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial has raised concerns that President Trump could be subject to blackmail.
Read the original article here
The Department of Justice has initiated a lawsuit against New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill, but in a rather astonishing turn of events, the lawsuit itself is riddled with repeated misspellings of the governor’s name. This isn’t just a minor oversight; the filing, spanning 21 pages, makes the error multiple times, at times spelling her name incorrectly and at other times only getting it right in quotations from external sources. It raises immediate questions about the competence and seriousness with which this legal action is being pursued.
The core of the DOJ’s contention appears to be that Governor Sherrill has overstepped her authority by issuing an executive order that restricts Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from accessing non-public state property without a judicial warrant. This order specifically mentions areas like government offices, child care centers, residential medical facilities, and university dorms. Essentially, the state is asserting its right to control access to its own property, requiring federal agents to obtain legal authorization before entering certain sensitive locations.
This situation begs the question of whether Congress has explicitly authorized ICE’s current operational methods, particularly concerning unannounced entry into state-owned facilities. If the actions of ICE are not clearly sanctioned by federal legislation, then the governor’s executive order could be seen as a reasonable assertion of state authority to protect its citizens and property. The legal basis for the DOJ’s lawsuit could therefore be on shaky ground.
The sheer number of misspellings in the lawsuit has led to widespread commentary suggesting that such errors could be grounds for dismissal. In legal proceedings, accuracy is paramount. A lawsuit that consistently misidentifies the defendant could be deemed procedurally flawed. This raises the possibility that the case could be thrown out on technicalities, irrespective of the substantive arguments being made. It’s a level of apparent sloppiness that seems uncharacteristic of the Department of Justice, an institution historically known for its legal acumen.
There’s a sense of nostalgia for a time when the DOJ was perceived as a formidable entity, attracting top legal talent and achieving a strong track record of victories. The current situation, however, is being described by some as a “sick joke,” implying a significant decline in the department’s professionalism and effectiveness under the current administration. The repeated misspelling of a prominent figure’s name in a federal lawsuit strikes many as a clear indicator of this decline, bordering on amateurishness.
The governor’s executive order was a clear statement of her intent to “stand up for New Jerseyans right to be safe.” This suggests a commitment to protecting her constituents, particularly in sensitive locations. The lawsuit against her for taking this stance, therefore, appears to some to be a disproportionate or even punitive response, especially when the legal execution of the lawsuit itself is so flawed.
The recurring misspelling of “Sherrill” as “Sherill” in the DOJ’s filing has prompted speculation about whether this is intentional or simply a profound display of incompetence. Some have even drawn parallels to how conservatives sometimes deliberately misspell the names of Democratic politicians. However, many lean towards Hanlon’s Razor, the principle that “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” In this context, the situation seems to be a perfect storm where incompetence might be the only “relief” from what could be perceived as a malicious attack.
The idea of a federal agency being unable to correctly identify the person it is suing is particularly galling. It suggests a fundamental lack of attention to detail and a disregard for due process. If the court were to take these errors seriously, the case could indeed be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. This would be a significant embarrassment for the Department of Justice and a victory for Governor Sherrill, not necessarily on the merits of the executive order, but on the grounds of legal procedural failure.
This entire episode points to a broader concern about the quality of civil servants and the functioning of government institutions. The narrative emerging is one of declining professionalism and accountability, where even the most basic tasks, like accurately spelling a name in a legal document, are proving to be insurmountable challenges. It’s a stark contrast to the expectation of competence and expertise that should characterize a department like the DOJ. The current situation, with its combination of alleged federal overreach and glaring errors, leaves many questioning the integrity and capability of those in power.