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
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report concludes that sufficient evidence existed to convict President-elect Donald Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, had he not been re-elected in 2024. The Department of Justice report details Trump’s alleged efforts, including spreading false claims of election fraud and inciting violence. Smith’s investigation faced significant challenges, including Trump’s use of social media to influence witnesses and legal proceedings. However, the DOJ’s policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president precluded further action.
Read More
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report details Donald Trump’s alleged attempts to interfere with the 2020 election, outlining charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct official proceedings. These charges stemmed from efforts to overturn the election results. However, the Department of Justice declined to prosecute Trump due to its longstanding policy against indicting a sitting president. The report itself is now publicly available.
Read More
The Special Counsel’s report delivered a stark conclusion: Donald Trump would have been convicted in the election interference case, had he not been elected President. This assertion, contained within the report’s final section, carries significant weight, especially considering the Department of Justice’s high conviction rate. The report unequivocally states that sufficient admissible evidence existed to secure and uphold a conviction. This isn’t a matter of speculation; the report directly assesses the strength of the case and its potential for success in a trial setting.
The report highlights that the decision to dismiss the indictment wasn’t based on a lack of evidence or weakness in the prosecution’s case.… Continue reading
This executive order establishes a new order of succession for the Attorney General’s office, outlining four U.S. Attorneys who will temporarily assume the role if the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and any designated officers are unable to perform their duties. The order explicitly excludes acting U.S. Attorneys and those ineligible under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. President Biden retains the discretion to deviate from this order as permitted by law. Finally, this order revokes Executive Order 13787 of March 31, 2017.
Read More
Following the killing of Brian Thompson, health insurance industry leaders urged the Department of Justice to prosecute accused assassin Luigi Mangione federally. This action, they argued, would deter copycat crimes. Federal charges, including potential death penalty consideration, were filed, preempting a parallel state case. The federal prosecution, seen as potentially “cleaner” than the state’s terrorism charge, is expected to proceed, though the timing suggests an effort to supersede the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. The case unfolds against a backdrop of Mangione’s anti-insurance manifesto and unexpected public support.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood