The Department of Justice released a portion of the long-awaited Epstein files to select conservative influencers. The release, presented in binders by Attorney General Bondi, primarily contained publicly available information such as flight logs and Epstein’s address book, disappointing many who expected new revelations. Several prominent conservatives criticized the event as a publicity stunt and expressed frustration with the lack of substantial new information. Further releases are promised, but their content and timing remain uncertain following a leaked letter revealing that the Attorney General had not yet received the relevant FBI files.
Read More
The Department of Justice is instructing its staff to ignore Elon Musk’s requests for their job details. This directive, issued from the highest levels of the DOJ, signals a clear refusal to cooperate with Musk’s demands. The situation underscores the absurdity of the situation and highlights the power struggle between a private citizen and a governmental body.
This unprecedented request from Musk raises serious questions about his motives and authority. It’s a blatant overreach, attempting to exert control over a branch of the government he has no legitimate power over. The DOJ’s response is both firm and appropriate; maintaining the integrity of its operations by refusing to comply with what appears to be an arbitrary and potentially unlawful demand.… Continue reading
In a move criticized by accountability advocates, the Department of Justice has deactivated the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, a system designed to prevent the rehiring of officers with misconduct records. Operational for just over a year, the database compiled disciplinary information from nearly 150,000 federal officers across 90 agencies. The White House offered no specific reasoning for its elimination, despite concerns about “wandering officers” who transfer between agencies with past misconduct. The database’s closure, however, leaves the National Decertification Index, a separate registry for state and local officers, unaffected.
Read More
The US Department of Justice’s decision to drop its immigration case against SpaceX is a significant development, sparking a whirlwind of reactions and raising serious questions about potential conflicts of interest and the erosion of established legal processes. The case initially stemmed from allegations that SpaceX violated immigration laws by prioritizing US citizens and lawful permanent residents in its hiring practices, supposedly justifying this stance by citing US export control regulations.
However, the Justice Department later conceded that export control laws didn’t actually mandate such restrictions on hiring. This admission throws the initial basis of the lawsuit into considerable doubt, leaving many to wonder about the motivations behind the original complaint and its subsequent dismissal.… Continue reading
Readers are encouraged to submit tips to The Daily Beast. Submissions can be made through a dedicated online portal. The process for sending tips is streamlined for ease of use. The Daily Beast values reader input and encourages its contribution to their reporting. Further details regarding submission guidelines may be found on their website.
Read More
The Department of Justice, under pressure from Attorney General Bondi and Acting Deputy Attorney General Bove, moved to drop charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. This decision, following the resignations of several federal prosecutors who refused to participate, was explicitly stated to be unrelated to the evidence against Adams. Instead, it is widely seen as a quid pro quo for Adams’ cooperation with the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The dismissal, described by some as an “openly corrupt legal bailout,” could be challenged in court as politically motivated.
Read More
Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagan Scotten resigned from the federal corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams, echoing his predecessor Danielle Sassoon’s concerns about the Department of Justice’s decision to drop the charges. Both prosecutors, who possess conservative backgrounds, criticized the DOJ’s alleged attempt to leverage the prosecution for political gain, specifically for the mayor’s cooperation on immigration enforcement. Scotten’s letter strongly condemned the use of prosecutorial power to influence policy, rejecting any involvement in such actions. The resignations follow reports of a proposed quid pro quo agreement between the mayor’s legal team and the federal government.
Read More
The Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, dropped corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. This decision, detailed in a letter from Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, falsely claimed the charges stemmed from the Biden administration. Instead, the dismissal is linked to Adams’ cooperation with the Trump administration’s deportation policies, creating a clear quid pro quo. The charges were dropped without prejudice, leaving the possibility of reinstatement, effectively making Adams beholden to the Trump administration. This act constitutes a severe abuse of power, leaving New York City with a mayor beholden to the federal government.
Read More
Acting Attorney General James McHenry terminated several Department of Justice employees involved in the prosecution of Donald Trump, citing a lack of trust in their ability to support the President’s agenda. The dismissed officials, including career prosecutors Molly Gaston, J.P. Cooney, Anne McNamara, and Mary Dohrmann, worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump’s handling of classified documents and attempts to overturn the 2020 election. This action has been criticized as anti-rule of law and anti-democratic, with legal experts noting that career civil servants are entitled to due process and cannot be summarily dismissed. The firings are purportedly part of an effort to end the “weaponization of government.”
Read More
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 137-page report on the January 6th insurrection details substantial evidence against Donald Trump and his associates, sufficient for a conviction were he not a former and potentially future president. The report undermines the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling by highlighting that much of Trump’s conduct was outside his constitutional powers. Furthermore, the report implicitly criticizes the Department of Justice’s policy against indicting a sitting president, suggesting this policy hindered the investigation. The report’s evidence heavily implicates both high-profile and less prominent participants in a coordinated attempt to subvert the 2020 election results.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood